'     I 


I      II 


II 


I 

I II I 


I  Hlill  i: 


I 
■I 


IS 


THE    MODE 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM 


PRESCRIBED 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT? 


BY 

M  /S  T  U  A  R  T  , 

Professor    of    S.v.tj4    Liloiuturo     in     the    Theological     Seminary,    Anclovcr. 


FROM  THE   BIBLICAL  REPOSITORY,   VOL.  Ill,   NO.   II. 


NASHVILLE  : 

GRAVES    AND    MARKS 

NEW   YORK: 
SHELDON,    LAMPORT    &    CO. 

1855. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/ismodeofchristia01stua 


INTRODUCTORY    REVIEW, 

If  the  question  is  asked — and  it  will  be,  many  scores  of 
times — "  Why  have  the  Baptists  republished  Mr.  Stuart's 
work  on  Baptism  ?"  we  answer  : — 

As  a  work  of  authority  upon  the  subject  of  the  primitive 
action  of  baptism,  and  the  Scriptural  warrant  for  infant  bap- 
tism. Prof.  Stuart  was  in  his  day  the  brightest  luminary  in 
the  constellation  of  Presbyterian  scholars.  He  was  the 
bright  particular  star  of  Andover,  and  shed  over  that  semi- 
nary a  halo  of  intellectual  light.  The  charm  of  his  name, 
his  reputation  for  profound  and  varied  scholarship,  on  both 
sides  of  the  water,  attracted  students  from  the  remotest  sec- 
tions of  our  Union,  and  for  nearly  half  a  century,  with  his 
students,  as  with  Presbyterians,  appeals  to  his  authority  have 
been  considered  ultimate.  It  was  not  strange,  then,  that, 
during  the  whole  period  of  his  established  scholarship,  he 
should  be  frequently  consulted  with  respect  to  the  classical 
import  and  use  of  the  terms  "  bapta"  and  "  baptizo"  and 
the  Scriptural  warrant  for  infant  baptism,  about  which  the 
Christian  world  was  so  much  divided  and,  in  his  day,  so 
violently  agitated. 

To  answer  all  these  interrogatories  at  once  and  finally,  to 
put  upon  record  for  an  inquiring  age,  and  to  leave  his  testi- 
mony behind  him  for  all  time  to  come,  influenced  him  to 
prepare  the  following  treatise. 

(3; 


4  INTRODUCTORY  REVIEW. 

It  originally  appeared  in  the  Biblical  Repository,  Vol.  IIT. 
No.  11,  and  was,  in  the  year  1833,  published  separately,  by 
Flagg,  Gould,  and  Newman,  Andover.  The  edition  was 
eagerly  sought  for,  and  speedily  exhausted ;  and  for  many 
years  there  has  been  an  earnest  demand  for  the  work  by 
Christians  of  all  denominations,  and  by.  none  more  than  by 
Baptists.  But  only  now  and  then  a  copy  could  be  procured. 
It  has  been  a  subject  of  inquiry  why  his  own  "  Church,"  or 
Pedobaptist  Publication  Societies,  have  not  kept  the  work  in 
print,  to  meet  the  numerous  demands  for  it,  and  even  taken 
measures  to  increase  those  demands.  We  leave  the  reader 
to  draw  his  own  conclusion. 

Our  reasons  for  recovering  it  from  its  present  obscurity, 
and  inviting  all  Christians,  especially  Baptists,  to  aid  in  its 
extensive  circulation,  are  several. 

It  is  unquestionably  a  scholarly  production  ;  and,  being  the 
decision  of  one  of  the  first  Pedobaptist  scholars  and  theolo- 
gians of  England  or  America,  it  can  be  appealed  to  with 
confidence  in  discussions  with  Pedobaptists  touching  the 
primitive  action  and  subjects  of  Baptism.  It  is  regarded  as 
a  standard  authority  with  Presbyterians,  and  an  authority 
that  must  be,  as  it  deserves  to  be,  respected  by  all  classes 
to  whom  the  name  of  Mr.  Stuart  is  familiar,  or  to  whom  his 
character  and  position  are  made  known. 

This  work  is  not  republished  by  Baptists  primai'ily  for 
the  sake  of  Prof.  Stuart's  reasonings,  but  for  the  authorities 
anl  facts  which  he  submits.  It  must  be  confessed  that  he 
reasons  like  a  Pedobaptist — as  one  whose  prejudices  and 
feelings  were  all  violently  opposed  to  the  facts  which  his 
candor  and  character  as  a  scholar  forced  him  to  admit.  His 
admissions,  his  facts  and  authorities,  arc  most  clearly  and 
conclusively  in  favor  of  the  Baptists;  while  his  reasonings, 
or  rather  inferences,  are  in  favor  of  Pedobaptists,  and  charac- 
teristically Pedobaptistic.      The  former  we  most  cordially 


INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW.  5 

receive  ;  the  latter,  with  all  due  deference,  reject.  And  yet, 
the  very  reasonings  or  inferences  of  Prof.  S.  in  this  work,  we 
conceive,  must  prove  powerful  arguments  in  favor  of  our 
positions  as  a  denomination. 

Will  not  all  classes  naturally  look  into  this  treatise  for 
the  strongest  argument  and  the  fairest  and  most  conclusive 
reasonings  that  the  Pedobaptists  of  either  continent  can 
furnish  1  If  not  from  the  mature  scholarship  and  resplendent 
talents  of  Moses  Stuart  of  Andover,  from  what  source  could 
they  reasonably  look  for  or  expect  it  1 

And  will  not  the  candid  and  impartial  inquirer  turn  from 
these  pages  with  astonishment,  and,  however  strong  his  pre- 
vious prepossessions  in  favor  of  Mr.  Stuart's  reasonings, 
with  disappointment'?  Will  he  not  irresistibly  conclude, 
"  If  these  are  the  arguments,  and  all  the  arguments, — if  these 
are  the  most  conclusive  and  satisfactory  reasonings  that  can  be 
produced  in  favor  of  affusion, — if  these  are  the  character  of 
inferences  upon  which  sprinkling  and  infant  baptism  indeed 
rest, — and,  above  all,  if  these  are  the  astounding  facts  which 
must  be  admitted,  and  which  so  potentially  militate  against 
and  rebuke  both  practices, — then  should  they  be  rejected 
from  the  Protestant  creed,  and  energetically  repudiated  in 
Protestant  practice. 

We  propose  to  make  a  brief  summary  of  Prof.  S.'s  admis- 
sions and  facts  touching  the  meaning  of  the  term  baptizo,  in 
the  classics,  the  Septuagint,  and  the  New  Testament,  and 
mark  how  he  seeks  to  avoid  the  logical  and  inevitable  con- 
clusions his  premises  force  upon  him.  The  whole  question 
of  the  import  of  the  term  baptizo,  when  applied  to  baptism, 
evidently  rests  upon  these  two  propositions,  and  these  alone, 
viz. : 

What  is  the  signification  of  baptizo  in  the  Greek  language 
of  the  age  in  which  the  New  Testament  was  written  % 


6  INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW. 

What  is  the  evident  signification  of  baptizo,  in  the  Bible, 
when  baptism  is  not  mentioned  1 

If  its  classical  use  is  to  dip,  to  immerse,  and  if  it  is  univer- 
sally, or  even  more  often,  so  used  in  the  Bible,  when  it  is  not- 
used  with  reference  to  the  rite,  then  the  conclusion  follows 
irresistibly  that  it  signifies  to  dip  or  immerse,  when  used  to 
designate  the  rite ;  for  we  cannot  suppose  that  the  Saviour 
used  the- term  in  an  unnatural  or  unusual  sense. 

From  an  extensive  examination  of  classical  authorities  and 
lexicons,  Prof.  S.  frankly  asserts  as  follows : 

"'Bapto,'  and  'baptizo,'  mean  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse 
into  any  liquid.  All  lexicographers  and  critics  of  any  note 
are  agreed  in  this." 

"The  verb  bapto  means  to  plunge  or  thrust  into  any  thing 
that  is  solid,  but  permeable :  to  plunge  in,  so  as  to  cover  or 
inclose  the  thing  plunged." 

"  The  verb  bapto  only  (and  its  derivatives  in  point  of 
form)  signifies  to  tinge,  to  dye,  or  calory 

"  No  doubt  then  can  remain,  that  the  word  bapto  means 
to  tinge  or  color;  and  in  this  respect  it  seems  plainly  to  differ 
from  baptizo.  I  find  no  instance  in  which  the  latter  is  em- 
ployed in  this  way." 

"The  word  baptizo  means  to  overwhelm,  literally  and 
figuratively,  in  a  variety  of  ways." 

Such  are  the  conclusions  to  which  a  patient  and  extensive 
examination  of  the  Greek  classics  forced  our  author.  He 
finds  not  one  solitary  exception.  The  Voice  of  antiquity  is 
unbroken.  Baptizo,  both  literally  and  figuratively,  means  to 
immerse,  to  overwhelm.  He  finds  no  variableness  or  shadow 
of  deviation  from  this  signification. 

If  the  testimony  of  Prof.  S.  needed  any  support,  that  of 
Alexander  Carson,  the  most  profound  critic  of  his  day,  in 
England,  could  be  brought  forward.     He  asserts  that  bap>- 


INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW.  7 

tizo  means  to  dip  or  immerse,  and  nothing  else — i.  e.,  that  it 
has  but  this  one  signification. 

But  with  Pedobaptists,  Dr.  Charles  Anthon,  of  Columbia 
College,  New  York,  the  first  of  American  scholars,  and 
author  of  a  series  of  Greek  and  Latin  classics  for  academies 
and  colleges,  is  certainly  high  authority. 

Columbia  College,  March,  27,  1843. 
Dr.  Palmley, 

Dear  Sir  : — There  is  no  authority  whatever  for  the  singu- 
lar remark  made  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Spring,  relative  to  the 
force  of  baptizo.  The  primary  meaning  of  the  word  is,  to 
dip  or  immerse,  and  its  secondary  meanings,  if  it  ever  had 
any,  all  refer,  in  some  way  or  other,  to  the  same  leading 
idea  ;  sprinkling,  <S,-c,  are  entirely  out  of  the  question. 

Charles  Anthon. 

We  might  strengthen  this  by  an  array  of  the  most  emi- 
nent scholarship  of  the  past  six  centuries,  but  it  needs  no 
more. 

Having  established  the  first  premise,  Prof.  S.  proceeds  to 
the  second,  which  he  thus  states  : 

"Bapto  and  baptizo,  in  the  Septuagint,  Apocrypha,  and 
New  Testament,  when  not  applied  to  the  rite  of  baptism, 
mean  to  plunge,  immerse,  dip  in,  overwhelm." 

From  the  Old  Testament  he  produces  every  passage  in 
which  bapto  occurs — eighteen  in  all.  In  thirteen  instances 
he  renders  it  to  dip  in,  overwhelm.  In  three  instances,  Ex. 
12  :  22  ;  Lev.  4  :  17,  and  14 :  15,  1-6  ;  very  strangely  trans- 
lates bapto,  "  to  moisten  or  smear  over  by  dipping  in  /"  But 
the  reader  can  see  here  that  he  includes  the  consequence  with 
the  action,  for  the  moistening  or  smearing  is  the  conse- 
quence of  the  "  dipping  in,"  and  is  no  part  of  the  signification 
of  the  verb  bapto.     He  could  as  justly  have  claimed  to  red- 


8  INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW. 

den  as  a  part  of  the  signification, — since  the  hyssop,  or  the 
finger  of  the  priest  is  made  red  by  dipping  in  blood,  as  it  is 
moistened  or  smeared  by  the  act.  The  signification  of  the 
verb  cannot  be  set  aside  without  an  undoubted  necessity 
for  it,  and  there  can  be  no  necessity  urged  in  this  case. 
And  what  reason  does  Prof.  S.  give  for  departing  from  the 
version  of  the  Seventy,  and  of  King  James'  translators'? 
He  stumbles  at  the  expression,  "  dipping"  from  the  oil  or 
blood,  and  thinks  it  involves  a  solecism — a  manifest  incon- 
sistency— and  therefore  forbids  the  idea  of  dipping  only. 
How  "  to  moisten  or  smear  over  by  dipping  in"  solves  his 
difficulty,  we  are  unable  to  perceive,  and  he  fails  to  explain. 
Prof.  S.  forgets  the  scholar  here,  in  his  anxiety  to  attach  the 
meaning  of  "  to  moisten,"  to  the  verb  bapto,  for  a  future  use 
in  summing  up  his  argument.  He  strangely  overlooks  the 
fact  that  this  very  expression  is  found  in  the  classics,  where 
no  one  ever  considered  it  solecistical. 

Atheneus  Deipnos,  3,  123,  quotes  an  ancient  dramatic 
poet,  who  makes  one  of  his  characters  say,  "  Dipping  a 
ladle  from  the  midst  of  a  cauldron  of  boiling  water,  I  will 
pour  it  over  you."  This  is  exactly  the  same  phraseology 
that  is  employed  by  the  Seventy,  in  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion." Suppose  we  substitute  Prof.  S.'s  peculiar  rendering : 
"  Moistening  or  smearing  over  a  ladle  from  the  midst  of  a 
cauldron  of  boiling  water,  I  will  pour  it  (what?  the  ladle!) 
over  you !" 

The  following  occur  in  Hippocrates'  Be  Ratione  Vic,  p. 
383  :  "  Dipping  warm  cakes  from  black  wine  and  oil." 

Plutarch,  in  his  life  of  Alexander,  says, — 

"  The  soldiers,  dipping  from  large  casks  and  urns,  drank 
to  each  other."* 

Would  Prof.  S.'s  rendering   make   the  sense  more  per- 

*  Judd's  Rev.  of  Stuart,  p.  144. 


INTRODUCTORY  REVIEW.  9 

spicuous   here,  or  would   it  render  it  manifestly  soleeisti- 
cal? 

One  of  the  two  remaining  instances,  our  author  renders, 
to  dye,  which  he  has  shown  to  be  the  secondary  meaning  of 
bapto,  since  articles  were  dyed  by  being  dipped. 

The  last  of  the  eighteen,  found  in  Dan.  4  :  30,  he  renders 
"  to  wet  or  bedew."  The  passage  reads,  "And  he  was  driven 
from  among  men,  and  did  eat  grass  as  an  ox,  and  his  body 
was  dipped  from  the  dew  of  heaven  ;"  "  wet  with"  is  the  ver- 
sion of  the  seventy  ;  but  the  phraseology  is  the  same  with 
that  of  the  passages  noticed  above,  and  it  should  be  rendered, 
like  them,  dipped  from  the  dew,  not  simply  slightly  moist- 
ened or  smeared  over  with  the  dew.  The  idea  evidently  is 
that  the  king  was  to  be  thoroughly  drenched,  bathed,  or 
immersed  in  the  dew  ;  as  thoroughly  drenched  as  to  his 
body  as  though  he  had  been  immersed  in  water.  To  be 
dipped  in  dew  is  a  strong  expression,  but  when  looked  upon 
as  spoken  hyperbolically,  it  appears  as  easy  as  this  declara- 
tion of  David  :  "All  the  night  I  make  my  bed  to  swim,"  i.e., 
with  his  tears.  This  only  in  passing,  for  bapto  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  action  of  Christian  baptism,  since  it  is  never 
used  to  designate  the  rite,  bnptizo  alone  being  used. 

Bapto  is  used  in  the  Septuagint,  therefore,  as  in  the 
classics,  to  signify  to  dip,  to  immerse,  and,  by  consequence, 
to  dye. 

Baptizo  he  finds  twice  only  in  the  Old  Testament,  once 
in  its  literal,  and  once  in  its  figurative  sense,  and  in  both  he 
concedes  it  signifies  to  dip,  to  overwhelm. 
■  2  Kings  5:4:  "And  Naaman  went  down  and  ebaptizeto 
en  to  Jordane  putamoy  dipped  himself  into  the  river  Jor- 
dan." Let  it  be  noticed  that  this  is  Prof.  S.'s  own  render- 
ing, and  the  phraseology  is  precisely  similar  to  that  used  in 
describing  the  baptism  of  our  Saviour.  Will  Prof.  S.  as 
frankly  render  that  "  was  plunged  or  dipped"  by  John  into 
'     1* 


10  INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW. 

the  river  Jordan"  1  or  will  he  allow  his  creed  to  warp  his 
scholarship  1 

The  second  instance  is  in  Isa.  21:4,  which  Prof.  S.  renders, 
"My  iniquity  overwhelms  me"  We  care  not  to  dispute  his 
rendering  of  baptizo  here,  it  answers  our  purpose  very  well. 
By  the  strangest  oversight  imaginable,  he  makes  it  the  ini- 
quity of  the  prophet  himself  that  overwhelms  him,  instead 
of  the  iniquity,  the  inexpressible  barbarity,  practiced  by  the 
enemies  of  Israel,  which  he  foresaw,  and  which  caused  his 
heart  to  pant  and  to  be  overwhelmed  with  consternation  ! 
But  even  Jove  sometimes  nodded,  and  so  does  Mr.  S.  Here 
closes  the  testimony  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  Prof.  Stuart 
admits  that  baptizo  is  used  in  no  other  sense  than  to  dip, 
to  plunge,  or  overwhelm — not  a  shade  of  meaning  like  "to 
sprinkle  or  to  pour  upon."  Let  this  be  distinctly  borne  in 
mind,  as  it  will  be  needed  in  the  concluding  argument. 

In  the  usage  of  the  Apocrypha,  baptizo  means  only  to 
dip,  to  immerse. 

Judith  12  :  7  :  Speaking  of  Judith,  that  "  she  abode  in  the 
camp  three  days,  and  at  night  went  out  into  the  valley  of 
Bethulia,  and  washed  herself  (ebaptizeto)  at  the  fountain  in 
the  camp."  Prof.  S.  renders  baptizo  in  this  place,  to  wash, 
a  signification  which  he  has  labored  through  a  score  of  pages 
to  prove  that  it  has  not  in  any  Greek  author,  or  in  the 
Greek  of  the  Septuagint !  In  the  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion which  he  has  given  to  us  in  his  translation  of  Ernesti 
and  Morus,  he  lays  down  the  rule  that  the  primary  meaning 
of  a  word  must  not  be  departed  from  without  absolute  ne- 
cessity ;  and  to  his  own  rule  we  hold  him.  It  must  be  a  law 
unto  him,  as  well  as  unto  another.  Is  there  an  obvious  ne- 
cessity laid  upon  him  to  depart  from  the  primary  significa- 
tion of  baptizo  1     Wherein  consists  the  necessity  ? 

1.  That  she  did  not  bathe  in  the  fountain  itself  from  which 
water  was  used  ?     It  docs  not  say  that  she  did, nor  Is  it  nee- 


INTRODUCTORY  REVIEW.  11 

essary  to  suppose  that  she  did.  She  bathed — immersed  her 
body — at  the  fountain  in  the  camp.  The  expression  is  com- 
mon, "  We  bathed  while  at  the  Sulphur  Spring  in  Nashville ;" 
meaning,  not  that  the  bath  was  taken  in  the  spring  from 
which  the  water  is  drunk,  but  in  the  baths  connected  with 
the  spring — appendages  with  which  all  our  watering-places 
are  supplied. 

Is  it  urged  that  it  was  not  the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  bathe 
their  bodies  frequently  ?  So  far  from  it,  it  was  characteristic 
of  them,  and  dipping,  or  total  ablution,  was  the  invariable 
manner  of  their  bodily  washings. 

Is  it  urged  that  the  idea  that  Judith  bathed  in  a  bath  at  the 
fountain,  involves  an  indelicate  exposure,  since  the  fountain 
was  "  in  the  camp"  ?  This  fountain  was  evidently  not  in 
the  thoroughfares  of  the  camp,  but  only  within  its  guarded 
limits. 

She  was  certainly  not  exposed  to  the  view  of  the  camp, 
for  she  went  out  at  night,  shielded  from  observation  by  its 
darkness,  to  the  fountain,  as  to  a  retired  spot,  and  there  per- 
formed her  ablutions.  But  does  not  Prof.  S.'s  supposition 
involve  as  great  sacrifice  of  decorum  as  the  declaration  of 
the  text  ?  His  washing  certainly  involves  a  total  washing 
of  the  body,  which,  if  she  was  in  the  view  of  the  soldiers, 
would  have  been  quite  as  indecorous  as  an  immersion.  That 
she  should  leave  her  tent,  and  seek  the  fountain,  under  cover 
of  night,  only  to  moisten  her  hands  and  face,  is  the  most  im- 
probable supposition  that  could  well  be  imagined.  Let  us 
candidly  interpret  by  the  light  of  our  past  investigations.  The 
prophet  commanded  Naaman  to  wash  himself  in  the  Jordan, 
and  he  obeyed  by  plunging  or  immersing  himself  (ebaptisa- 
to)  in  the  river.  Here  we  read  that  Judith  (ebaptizeto)  im- 
mersed or  bathed  herself  at  the  fountain  ;  and  where  is  the 
necessity  compelling  us  to  give  the  term  an  unusual  meaning 
here  ?     It  certainly  is  not  obvious. 


12  INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW. 

The  second  instance  is  in  Sirach  31  :  25.  "  If  any  one 
who  is  immersed  (baptizomenos)  from  a  dead  body  toucheth 
it  again,  what  is  he  profited  by  his  bath  ?"  Prof  S.  renders 
this,  "  cleansed  from  a  dead  body,"  a  signification  similar  to 
that  of  "  smear  by  dipping,"  noticed  a  little  back.  Ceremo- 
nial cleansing  was  the  result  of  an  ablution  of  the  body  in 
water ;  but  to  cleanse  is  not  therefore  a  part  of  the  verb. 
Whether  the  body  is  cleansed  or  defiled,  cooled  or  warmed, 
by  an  immersion,  depends  upon  circumstances,  but  are  these 
circumstances  ever  a  part  of  the  signification  of  the  verb 
baptizo?  And  would  a  scholar  incorporate  them  in  the 
signification,  unless  he  had  an  ultimate  cause  to  serve  that 
was  unusually  dear  to  him  1 

But  this  case  can  be  disposed  of  summarily  by  a  simple 
reference  to  the  act  enjoined  upon  one  who  is  defiled  by 
contact  with  a.  dead  body.  We  find  the  law  in  Numbers 
19  :  18  :  "And  on  the  seventh  day  he  shall  purify  himself 
and  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water"  &c.  To 
bathe,  every  one  who  reads  English  knows,  or  can  easily 
make  himself  to  know,  by  consulting  his  dictionary,  is  "  to 
dip  in  a  bath,"  artificial  or  natural — an  ablution  of  the  whole 
body. 

Here  we  dismiss  the  Apocrypha,  having  seen  that  its  tes- 
timony perfectly  harmonizes  with  that  of  previous  witnesses. 
We  now  enter  the  New  Testament  with  our  author.  Bapto, 
he  concedes,  is  never  used  to  designate  the  rite  of  baptism. 
He  produces  only  three  passages  in  which  it  occurs ;  in  two 
of  which,  Luke  16:4,  and  John  13  :  26,  he  renders  it  to  dip; 
and  once,  in  Rev.  19  :  13,  to  dye.  This  term  is  henceforth 
dismissed  from  this  discussion. 

Prof.  S.  now  inquires  for  the  signification  of  baptizo  and 
its  derivatives,  when  not  applied  to  the  rite  of  bap>tism.  Be- 
fore a  step  is  taken,  let  the  rule  which  Prof.  S.  declares  must 
govern  us  be  repeated  :  "  The  primary  or  literal  signification 


INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW.  13 

of  a  word  must  always  be  taken,  unless  the  context  obviously 
demands  a  secondary  signification." 

We  find  baptizo  used  in  five  passages,  disconnected  from 
the  rite  of  Christian  baptism,  and  in  every  instance  Prof.  S. 
renders  it  by  wash  and  its  cognates  !  and  this  without  offer- 
ing a  solitary  reason,  and  in  palpable  violation  of  his  own 
rule  ! ! !  for  the  context,  the  common  sense  of  the  passages, 
as  well  as  the  well-known  custom  of  the  Jews  at  the  time 
this  was  written,  prove  that  baptizo  should,  and  must,  have 
its  primary  and  natural  signification — to  immerse.  Here 
are  two  instances  : 

Mark  7  :  3,  4  :  "  The  Pharisees  [returning]  from  the  mar- 
ket eat  not  except  they  (baptisontai)  immerse  themselves." 
Mid.  voice. 

Luke  11 :  38  :  ''  But  the  Pharisees,  seeing  him,  wondered 
that  he  had  not  first  (ebaptisthe)  immersed  himself  before 
dinner." 

Why  does  not  Prof.  S.  deign'  to  offer  some  reason  for 
dragging  in  an  unusual  signification  here — for  so  violent  an 
infraction  of,  and  contempt  for,  his  own  rules  of  interpreta- 
tion. Does  he  claim  that  his  term  wash  implies  less  in 
this  case  than  to  immerse  1  Not  a  word  of  it.  Does  he 
intimate  that  the  Pharisees  did  not  dip  the  part  they  washed, 
whether  it  may  be  understood  of  the  hands  merely,  or  of 
the  whole  body  (for  it  affects  not  the  conclusion  whether  it 
was  the  whole  body  immersed,  or  only  the  hands,  for  the 
definition  remains)  ?  Not  by  one  word.  He  openly  begs 
the  question — takes  for  granted  the  very  thing  he  is  bound 
•to  prove,  i.  e.,  that  wash  is  an  admissible  signification  here. 
He  must  not  be  allowed  to  avail  himself  of  this  sophistry  in 
his  conclusion. 

Though  it  is  not  incumbent  upon  us  to  prove  that  baptizo 
and  its  cognates  have  their  usual  meaning  here,  yet  it  can 


14  INTRODUCTORY  REVIEW. 

be  proven  to  the  conversion  of  the  most  obdurate  unbeliever, 
if  he  is  only  a  candid  and  reasonable  man. 

Mark  informs  us,  7  :  3,  4,  that  the  Pharisees,  and  all  the 
Jews,  unless  they  wash  their  hands  (jmgme)  oft,  i.e.,  thor- 
oughly, they  eat  not ;  but  when  they  come  from  the  mar- 
ket, they  eat  not  except  they  immerse  themselves,  and  that 
this  was  according  to  the  tradition  of  the  elders.  By  con- 
tact, accidental  or  otherwise,  with  the  crowd  in  the  market- 
place they  regarded  themselves  possibly  as  denied,  and  there- 
fore ate  not  until  they  had  immersed  themselves  ;  but  when 
they  had  not  thus  mingled  with  the  multitude,  they  only 
washed  their  hands  thoroughly.  The  Saviour  (Luke  11  :  38) 
had  been  thus  mingling  with  the  people,  and  therefore  they 
marvelled  that  he  ate  without  first  immersing  himself,  ac- 
cording to  the  inviolable  rule  of  the  elders.  The  "  washing 
of  themselves"  after  coming  from  market,  certainly  implies 
more  than  the  ordinary  washing  of  their  hands,  "  for  if  they 
on  no  occasion  eat  without  washing,  of  course  they  did  not 
do  it  after  coming  from  market ;  what,  then,  is  the  necessity 
of  adding  that  particular]  And  even  if  we  interpret  it  of 
dipping  the  hands,  it  will  seem  to  involve  what  is  worse 
than  mere  tautology ;  viz.,  a  degradation  of  ideas,  and  that 
in  an  inverse  ratio  to  the  importance  of  the  occasion."  Jn 
all  cases  of  positive  defilement,  purification  was  accomplished 
by  bathing  the  body  in  water,  and  these  traditions  of  the 
elders  were  concerning  possible  defilement,  and  would  they 
have  enjoined  less  1  "  Who,"  asks  Mr.  Judd,  "  that  fears  he 
has  been  exposed  to  the  small-pox,  though  he  is  not  certain 
of  the  fact,  would  inoculate  himself  with  any  thing  but  the 
genuine  vaccine  matter?  Certainly  he  could  be  none  the 
better  for  using  any  thing  less  efficacious,  nor  any  worse  for 
omitting  it. 

Baptismas  in  its  inflections  occurs  three  times,  which  Prof. 
S.  also  translates  washings,  without  deigning  to  suggest  a 


INTRODUCTORY  REVIEW.  15 

reason,  and   therefore  without  reason,  which  compels   us, 
according  to  his  rule,  to  adhere  to  the  natural  and  universal  _ 
signification.     The  instances  are, 

Mark  7:4:  "The  (baptimus)  immersion  of  cups,  and 
brazen  vessels,  and  couches,"  i.  e.,  cushions  on  which  the 
guests  reclined.     The  same  in  Mark  7 :  8. 

If  it  was  incumbent  upon  us,  we  could  prove  from  Mai- 
monides,*  that  these  purifications  were  invariably  by  im- 
mersion ;  but  since  Prof.  S.  does  not  deny,  why  should  we 
take  the  pains  to  prove  % 

Heb.  9  :  10  :  "  Only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers 
(baptismois)  immersions."  In  this  passage,  also,  with  the 
utmost  coolness,  and  in  supreme  contempt  of  his  own  law  of 
interpretation,  Mr.  S.  translates  baptismois,  "  washings." 
That  they  allude  to  the  immersions  under  the  law,  for  the 
divers  instances  in  which  immersion  was  enjoined,  admits  of 
no  doubt ;  nor  does  Prof.  S.  himself  claim  that  bap>tismois 
refers  to  sprinkling  or  pouring  upon.  The  ceremonial  wash- 
ings under  the  law  were  by  immersion — "  bathing  the  body 
in  water."  The  Greek  fathers  understood  these  "  divers 
baptisms"  to  refer  to  the  diverse  occasions,  not  modes,  of 
immersions  required  by  the  law.  Theophylact,  on  this 
passage,  says,  "  And  there  were  '  diverse  baptisms'  among 
them.  For  if  any  one  had  touched  the  dead,  or  the  leprous, 
or  was  unclean,  he  baptized  himself,  and  so  was  considered 
to  be  cleansed." 

Prof.  S.  next  examines  the  sense  of  baptizo  and  its  cog- 
nates, when  used  figuratively. 

The  Saviour  speaks  of  his  suffering  as  a  baptism — Luke  12  : 
50  ;  Mark  12 :  38,  39  ;  which  our  author  concedes  implies  an 
overwhelming.  Baptism  for  the  dead — 1  Cor.  15  :  29,  he 
also  thinks  refers  to   the  overwhelming  sorrows  to  which 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  3. 


16  INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW. 

their  baptism  exposed  them,  and   he  labors  to  prove  this. 
••   He  says,  "  Inasmuch,  now,  as  the  more  usual  idea  of  Baptizo 
is  that  of  overwhelming  immerging,  it  was  very  natural  to 
employ  it  in  designating  severe  calamities  and  sufferings." 

Every  step  taken  thus  far  has  tended  directly  to  strengthen 
the  signification  of  baptizo  given  by  Prof.  S.  at  first,  i.  e.,  to 
dip,  to  plunge,  overwhel  m.  The  universal  Verdict  of  all  Greek 
authors,  of  the  Septuagint,  of  the  Apochrypha,  and  of  the  New 
Testsment,  sustain  it.  Prof.  S.  makes  a  slight  effort  to  find  the 
shadow  of  an  idea  of  copious  affusion,  in  the  expression,  "  He 
shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire  ;"  also  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  1  Cor.  12  :  13,  and  whenever  it 
occurs.  While  he  admits  the  basis  of  the  expression,  "  Bap- 
tize you  with  Holy  Ghost,"  &c,  is  very  plainly  to  be  found 
in  the  designation,  by  baptizo,  of  the  idea  of  overwhelming — 
i.  e.,  of  surrounding  on  all  sides  with  fluid — he  thinks  that  co- 
pious affusion  is  kindred  to  this.  We  do  not  concern  our- 
self  with  our  author's  opinion  of  what  may  answer  as  well ; 
the  point  is,  is  there  any  necessity  to  depart  from  the  natural 
and  usual  signification  of  baptizo  in  these  passages  ]  There 
is  none.  Prof.  S.  does  not  claim  that  there  is  any,  but 
simply  suggests  it  as  possibly  answering  the  idea.  But  what 
right  has  he  to  substitute  the  meaning  of  "  copious  affusion," 
or  "  effusion,"  for  baptizo  ?  Does  he  claim  that  it  is  the 
usual  signification  of  the  term  1  He  has  proven  and  de- 
clared that  it  is  not.  Does  he  claim  that  it  is  even  a  second- 
ary or  an  occasional  meaning  1  He  does  not.  All  his  ex- 
amples, gathered  from  whatever  source,  prove  that  it  will  not 
admit  of  the  idea  of  affusion  or  effusion  in  either  literal  or 
figurative  usage. 

Prof.  S.  cannot  be  allowed  his  new  signification ;  he  has 
brought  it  in  too  late,  and  it  is  at  open  conflict  with  the  con- 
struction. Copious  affusion  or  effusion  is  denoted  by  "  to 
pour."     Translate  the  passage  with  this  signification  :  "  He 


INTRODUCTORY  REVIEW.  17 

shall  pour  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire;"  and  Prof.  S. 
himself  will  reject  it  at  once,  because  "  to  pour  with"  is  an 
unheard-of  and  incongruous  expression.  Mr.  W.  Judd,  in 
noticing  this,  says:  "  The  Greeks  very  rarely  used  in  to  denote 
instrumentality,  and  never  in  connection  with  a  verb  signify- 
ing to  pour.  I  affirm,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  the 
phrase  '  to  pour  in,'  in  the  sense  '  to  pour  with,'  cannot  be 
found  in  the  compass  of  the  language.  If  the  verb  baptizo 
could  be  proved  to  signify  '  to  pour,'  the  phi'ase,  as  it  is 
constructed,  must  signify  '  to  pour  in ;'  and  then  it  will 
follow  that  the  apostles  were  poured  in  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  still  would  involve  immersion  ;  for  whether  they  were 
plunged  or  poured  in  the  Spirit,  they  would  be  immersed. 
But  the  idea  of  pouring  a  person  into  the  element  is  absurd 
in  itself,  and  wholly  unauthorized."  The  Greek  fathers,  who 
understood  the  construction  of  their  own  language,  were  not 
troubled  to  understand  this  baptism  in  the  Spirit.  They  all 
understood  it  an  immersion  in  the  Holy  Spirit — implying 
that  the  subjects  were  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit — immersed  in  the  spiritual  light. 

Theophylact,  Commentary  on  Mat.  3  :  11,  says,  "That 
is,  he  shall  inundate  you  abundantly  with  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit." 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem  explains  it  thus  :  "  For  as  he  that 
goes  down  into  the  water  and  is  baptized,  is  surrounded 
on  all  sides  by  the  water,  so  the  apostles  were  totally  im- 
mersed by  the  Spirit.  The  water  surrounds  the  body  ex- 
ternally, but  the  Spirit  incomprehensibly  immerses  the  soul 
within. 

This  closes  the  proof  of  the  second  premise.  We  now 
have  two,  established  with  the  clearness  of  demonstration. 

1.  The  term  baptizo,  in  classical  usage,  universally  signi- 
fies to  dip,  to  immerse,  to  plunge. 

2.  That  baptizo  In  the  usage  of  the  Septuagint  and  Apocra 


18  INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW. 

pha,  and  in  the  New  Testament,  both  literally  and  figurative- 
ly, when  nut  applied  to  the  rile  of  baptism,  signifies  to  dip,  to 
plunge,  to  overwhelm. 

What,  then,  must  be  the  unavoidable  conclusion  of  every 
conscientious  person  1  That  it  is  used  contrary  to  its  univer- 
sal classical  and  scriptural  sense,  when,  and  only  tohen  ap- 
plied to  baptism  ?  Will  any  one  say  that  the  Saviour  de- 
signed to  obscure  his  command  to  baptize — conceal  the  action 
of  baptism,  and  thus  distract  and  divide  his  followers  into 
contending  factions  as  they  are  now,  touching  the  rite  ?  Will 
any  one  say  from  the  above  premises  that  he  specified  no 
definite  act,  but  left  it  for  his  followers  to  perform  what  act 
they  might  think  best  1 

The  conclusion  from  the  above  premises,  in  all  candor  and 
honesty,  we  think  unavoidably  this  : 

Therefore,  The  word  baptizo  when  used  with  reference  to 
baptism  is,  to  dip,  to  immerse. 

In  support  of  this  conclusion  we  submit  the  authority  of 
the  most  distinguished  Pedobaptist  scholars  of  the  Refor- 
mation. 

Lutiiek.  "The  term  baptism  is  a  Greek  word.  It  may  be  rendered 
a  dipping,  when  we  dip  something  in  water,  that  it  may  be  entirely 
covered  with  water.  And  though  that  custom  be  quite  abolished 
among  the  generality  (for  neither  do  they  entirely  dip  children,  but 
only  sprinkle  them  with  a  little  water),  nevertheless  they  ought  to  be 
wholly  immersed,  and  presently  to  be  drawn  out  again  ;  for  the  ety- 
mology of  the  word  seems  to  require  it.  The  Germans  call  baptism 
tau(f,  from  depth,  which  they  call  tiejf,  in  their  language  ;  as  if  it  were 
proper  those  should  be  deeply  immersed,  who  arc  baptized.  And, 
truly,  if  you  consider  what  baptism  signifies,  you  shall  see  the  same 
thing  required  :  for  it  signifies,  that  the  old  man  and  our  nativity, 
that  is  full  of  sins,  which  is  entirely  of  flesh  and  blood,  may  be  over- 
whelmed by  divine  grace.  The  manner  of  baptism,  therefore,  should 
correspond  to  the  signification  of  baptism,  that  it  may  show  a  certain 
and  plain  sign  of  it."    In  Dr.  Du  Veil,  on  Acts  8  :  38. 

Calvin.  "  The  word  baptize  signifies  to  immerse ;  and  the  rite  of 


INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW.  \         ^19 


immersion  was  observed  by  the  ancient  Church." — Inst.  Chnr.  Rcl. 
1.  iv. 

"  From  these  words  (John  3  :23)  it  may  be  inferred  that  baptism 
was  administered  by  John  and  Christ,  by  plunging  the  whole  body 
under  water.  *  *  *  Here  we  perceive  how  baptism  was  admin- 
istered among  the  ancients  ;  for  they  immersed  the  whole  body  in 
water.  Now  it  is  the  prevailing  practice  for  a  minister  only  to 
sprinkle  the  body  or  the  head."— Com.  on  John  3  :  and  Acts  7  :  33. 

Beza.  "  Christ  commanded  us  to  be  baptized,  by  which  word  it  is 
certain  immersion  is  signified." 

Buddeus.  "  The  words  bcptistin  and  baptismos  are  not  to  be  inter- 
preted of  aspersion,  but  always  of  innnersion.''1 

Vexema.  "  The  word  baptizo  is  nowhere  used  in  Scripture  for 
sprinkling. 

Altixoius.  "  Baptism  is  immersion,  when  the  whole  body  is  im- 
merged  ;  but  the  term  baptism  is  never  used  concerning  aspersion." 

Casaubon.  "  This  was  the  rite  of  baptizing,  that  persons  were 
plunged  into  the  water,  which  the  very  word  baptizo  sufficiently  de- 
clares." 

But  from  this  legitimate  conclusion,  Prof.  Stuart  adroitly 
attempts  to  lead  his  reader  away,  by  asserting  that  the  con- 
clusion may  be  enlightened  by  the  five  following  consider- 
ations : 

I.  "  We  may  contemplate  the  proper  force  and  signification 
of  the  word  itself  as  determined  by  the  usus  loquendi  in  gen- 
eral." 

And  what  does  Prof.  Stuart  declare  this  is  1  "A  review 
of  the  preceding  examples  must  lead  any  one,  I  think,  to  the 
conclusion,  that  the  predominant  usage  of  the  ivords  bapto 
and  baptizo  is,  to  designate  the  idea  of  dippiny,  plunging,  and 
overwhelming?     This  strengthens  our  conclusion. 

But  now,  mark  his  manifest  unfairness.  He  claims  his 
suppositions,  which  we  noticed  a  few  pages  back,  for  estab- 
lished facts.  He  says  :  "  We  have  seen  that  the  word  baptizo 
sometimes  means  to  wash."     The  reader  knows  he  has  seen 

(5) 


20  INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW. 

no  such  thing.  Mr.  S.  gratuitously  substituted  wash  for  dip 
or  immerse  in  those  instances  without  authority,  and  con- 
trary to  his  own  established  rule  of  interpreting  language. 
He  says  :  "  It  may  mean  washing ;"  and  this  is  only  his  baro 
assertion.  He  has  not  produced  so  much  as  one  instance 
where  washing  is  the  necessary  meaning  of  baptizo.  Bald  and 
unsupported  suppositions  will  not  avail  here.  He  also  says, 
"possibly  (but  not  probably)  it  may  mean  copiously  moist- 
ening or  bedewing."  If  there  is  no  probability  of  it,  why 
does  Prof.  S.  suppose  such  a  meaning,  unless  to  familiarize 
his  readers  with  the  sounds  of  washing  and  copious  affusion,  in 
connection  with  baptism. 

II.  4l  We  may  examine  the  circumstances  which  attended  the 
administration  of  this  rite,  and  see  tvhether  they  cast  any  light 
upon  the  manner  of  the  rite  itself." 

We  commend  this  advice  to  every  inquirer.  Let  him 
take  his  New  Testament,  and  Concordance,  and  refer  to  the 
j)assages  in  which  baptism  occur,  and  impartially  consider 
the  circumstances  for  himself;  and  we  are  satisfied  what  his 
conclusion  will  be. 

Prof.  Stuart  now  forgets  the  scholar  in  the  theologian.  He 
invariably  adopts  the  views  and  interpretations  of  the  pas- 
sages, which  the  overwhelming  mass  of  Pedobaptist  scholars 
and  commentators  repudiate :  That  Jesus  may  not  have 
gone  down  into  the  water,  or  "  went  up  out  of  the  water," 
but  only  from  the  banks  of  the  river  !  That  John  baptized 
in  Enon  because  he  wanted  many  "little  streams"  of  water 
for  the  accommodation  of  the  multitude!  That  Philip  and 
thee  unuch  may  have  only  gone  down  to  the  water  and  come 
up  from  it !  That  possibly  there  might  not  have  been  suffi- 
cient time  to  baptize  the  three  thousand  on  the  same  day  they 
believed,  and  possibly,  but  not  probably,  there  might  not  have 
been  a  sufficiency  of  water  at  hand.     Yet  Prof.  S.  does  not 


INTRODUCTORY    REVIEW.  21 

urge  that  immersion  was  impossible  in  this  ease,  but  only  in- 
convenient !  Does  he  claim  the  shadow  of  an  impossibility 
in  the  case  of  Cornelius  ?  None  ;  but  admits  "  that  another 
meaning  [than  the  one  he  suggests]  is  not  necessarily  ex- 
cluded, which  would  accord  with  the  practice  of  immersion." 
Does  he  claim  any  in  the  case  of  the  jailer  ?  None  ;  he 
only  thinks  the  jails  and  prisons  of  those  eastern  countries 
might  not  have  been  accommodated  with  baths,  &c,  which 
is  directly  contrary  to  the  universal  testimony  of  all  travel- 
lers. "  Still,"  he  admits,  "  the  jiossibility  of  this  cannot  be 
denied."  Does  he  claim  any  thing  militating  against  the  im- 
mersion of  Paul — Acts  22  :  16  1  He  thinks  that  "  washing, 
or  washing  off,  was  the  manner  of  the  baptism  on  this  occa- 
sion !"  And  pray,  what  does  the  critic  mean  by  a  washing 
off?  That  Paul  was  divested  of  his  clothes,  and  washed  and 
rubbed,  as  we  wash  off  a  horse?  Still,  our  author  has  the 
candor  to  confess,  "  I  acknowledge  that  this  is  not  a  neces- 
sary conclusion  :  for  bathing,  or  immersion,  would  produce 
the  effect  of  washing  off"  And  we  may  add,  that  sprink- 
ling could  not  convey  the  idea  of  "  washing  off."  In  oppo- 
sition to  a  host  of  modern  Pedobaptist  authors  and  preach- 
ers, Prof.  S.  proves  that  the  metaphorical  baptism  of  the 
Israelites  in  the  Red  Sea  was  not  a  sprinkling,  or  a  pouring, 
but,  as  Baptists  contend,  a  surrounding  upon  all  sides,  which 
was  an  immersion  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.  He  says, 
"  but  the  cloud,  on  this  occasion,  was  not  a  cloud  of  rain  ;  nor 
do  we  find  any  intimation  that  the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea 
sprinkled  the  children  of  Israel  at  this  time."  Prof.  S.'s 
theory  on  Romans  6  :  4,  and  Col.  2 :  12,  we  pass  without 
comment.  All  Pedobaptist  commentators  of  note,  from 
Luther  until  now,  are  against  him,  and  thuir  united  testi- 
mony proves  his  theory  untenable  and  preposterous.  Cer- 
tainly, the  cause  of  sprinkling  needs  no  such  far-fetched 


22  INTRODUCTORY  REVIEW. 

expositions — no  such  violent  wrestings  of  God's  word  to 
sustain  it !  ! 

Here  closes  the  examination  of  the  circumstances  of  bap- 
'tism  in  the  New  Testament,  and  Prof.  S.  shows  that  not  the 
slightest  ground  can  be  found  for  either  sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing— for  he  can  find  no  obvious  impossibility,  or  improbabil- 
ity, forbidding  us  to  translate  baptizo  by  its  natural  and  usual 
signification,  and  therefore  we  are  bound  so  to  translate  it. 

Prof.  Stuart's  third  "  way"  to  cast  light  upon  the  ground 
of  inquiry,  is  an  examination  of  the  history  of  Jewish  pros- 
elyte baptism.  He  was  aware  that  Mr.  Wall  builds  a 
strong  argument  in  favor  of  immersion,  as  the  only  act  of 
Christian  baptism,  from  proselyte  baptism,  which  he  (Mr. 
W.)  claimed  to  have  been  practiced  prior  to  the  days  of 
John,  the  immerser,  but  we  are  not  aware  that  this  was 
ever  an  argument  with  Baptists.  Prof.  S.  has  written  elabo- 
rately upon  this  subject,  and  we  think  conclusively  proved 
that  proselyte  baptism  had  its  rise  about  the  year  200,  or 
perhaps  later,  thus  completely  demolishing  Mr.  Wall's 
strongest  argument  in  favor  of  infant  baptism  in  the  apos- 
tolic age  of  the  Church,  as  well  as  that  in  favor  of  immer- 
sion, which  was  far-fetched.  Our  author,  in  thus  conclusively 
answering  Wall's  strongest  and  most  plausible  argument  in 
favor  of  infant  baptism,  has  performed  an  important  service. 
The  argument  in  favor  of  immersion  loses  nothing,  while  in- 
fant baptism  is  effectually  ruined  by  the  operation. 

Our  author's  fifth  way  to  aid  us  in  deciding  whether  bap- 
tizo was  probably  used  in  its  natural  signification  by  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  is  to  "  investigate  the  subsequent  history 
of  the  rite,  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Christian  church,  and  sec 
what  mode  of  baptizing  was  practiced  by  the  churches  in 
general."  Here  he  finds  the  most  abundant  and  conclusive 
evidence  upon  every  page  of  history,  for  thirteen   centuries, 


INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW.  23 

that  immersion  was  the  universal  practice  of  all  professed 
Christians,  until  after  the  dogma  of  baptismal  regeneration, 
when,  in  extreme  cases,  a  copious  affusion — not  sprinkling — 
was  authorized,  first  by  councils,  and  afterwards  ratified 
by  the  Popes  of  Rome.  Our  space  allows  us  only  to  sub- 
mit his  conclusions. 

"  But  enough.  '  It  is,'  says  Augusti  (Denkw.  VIII.  p.  216), 
'  a  thing  made  out,'  viz.,  the  ancient  practice  of  immersion. 
1  So,  indeed,  all  the  writers  who  have  thoroughly  investigated 
this  subject  conclude.  1  know  of  no  one  usage  of  ancient 
times,  which  seems  to  be  more  clearly  and  certainly  made 
out.  I  cannot  see  how  it  is  possible  for  any  candid  man  who 
examines  the  subject,  to  deny  this.' 

"  The  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion,  the  Oriental  church 
has  always  continued  to  preserve,  even  down  to  the  present 
time." 

"The  members  of  this  church  are  accustomed  to  call  the 
members  of  the  western  churches  sprinkled  Christians,  by 
way  of  ridicule  and  contempt ;  Walch's  Einleit.  in  die  relig. 
Streitigkeiten,  Th.  V.  pp.  476 — 481.  They  maintain,  that 
(3afTi%u  can  mean  nothing  but  immerge  ;  and  that  baptism 
by  sprinkling  is  as  great  a  solecism  as  immersion  by  asper- 
sion;  and  they  claim  to  themselves  the  honour  of  having 
preserved  the  ancient  sacred  rite  of  the  church  free  from 
change  and  from  corruption,  which  would  destroy  its  signifi- 
cancy  ;  see  Alex,  de  Stourdza,  Considerations  sur  la  Doc- 
trine et  1'  Esprit  de  1'  Eglise  Orthodox©,  Stuttg.  1816,  pp. 
83—89. 

"  F.  Brenner,  a  Roman  Catholic  writer,  has  recently  pub- 
lished a  learned  work,  which  contains  a  copious  history  of 
usages  in  respect  to  the  baptismal  rite  ;  viz.,  Geschichtliche 
Darstellung  der  Verrichtung  der  Taufe,  etc.  1818.  I  have 
not  seen  the  work ;  but  it  is  spoken  of  highly,  on  account  of 
the  diligence  and  learning  which  the  author  has  exhibited  in 


24  INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW. 

his  historical  details.  The  result  of  them  respecting  the  point 
before  us,  I  present,  as  given  by  Augusti,  Denkwurd.  VII. 
p.  68. 

"  'Thirteen  hundred  years  was  baptism  generally  and  or- 
dinarily  performed  by  the  immersion  of  a  man  underwater; 
and  only  in  extraordinary  cases  was  sprinkling  or  affusion 
permitted.  These  latter  methods  of  baptism  were  called  in 
question,  and  even  prohibited.' 

"  In  the  work  of  John  Floyer  on  Cold  Bathing,  p.  50,  it  is 
mentioned,  that  the  English  church  practiced  immersion  down 
to  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century  ;.  when  a  change 
to  the  method  of  sprinkling  gradually  took  place.  As  a  con- 
firmation of  this,  it  may  be  mentioned,  that  the  first  Liturgy, 
in  1547,  enjoins  a  trine  immersion,  in  case  the  child  is  not 
sickly  ;  Augusti,  ut  sup.  p.  229. 

"  We  have  collected  facts  enough  to  authorize  us  now  to 
come  to  the  following  general  conclusion,  respecting  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Christian  church  in  general,  with  regard  to  the 
mode  of  baptism,  viz.,  that  from  the  earliest  ages  of  which 
we  have  any  account,  subsequent  to  the  apostolic  age,  and 
downward  for  several  centuries,  the  churches  did  generally 
practice  baptism  by  immersion  ;  perhaps  by  immersion  of  the 
whole  person;  and  that  the  only  exceptions  to  this  mode 
which  were  usually  allowed,  were  in  cases  of  urgent  sick- 
ness, or  other  cases  of  immediate  and  imminent  danger, 
where  immersion  could  not  be  practiced. 

"  It  may  also  be  mentioned  here,  that  aspersion  and  affu- 
sion, which  had,  in  particular  cases,  been  now  and  then  prac- 
tized in  primitive  times,  were  gradually  introduced.  These 
became  at  length,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  quite  common, 
and  in  the  western  church  almost  universal,  some  time  before 
the  Reformation. 

"  In  what  manner,  then,  did  the  churches  of  Christ,  from  a 
very  early  period,  to  say  the  least,  understand  the  word 


INTKODl'CTOJIY    KEYIEW 


2%a 


jSaWTi'^w  in  the  New  Testament  1  Plainly  they  construed  it 
as  meaning  immersion.  They  sometimes  even  went  so  for  as 
to  forbid  any  other  method  of  administering  the  ordinance, 
cases  of  necessity  and  mercy  only  excepted. 

"  If,  then,  we  are  left  in  doubt,  after  a  philological  investiga- 
tion of  (3a<ifri.%u,  how  much  it  necessarily  implies;  if  the  cir- 
cumstances which  are  related  as  accompanying  this  rite,  so 
far  as  the  New  Testament  has  given  them,  leave  us  still  iu 
doubt ;  if  we  cannot  trace  with  any  certainty  the  Jewish  pros- 
elyte baptism  to  a  period  as  early  as  the  baptism  of  John 
and  Jesus,  so  as  to  draw  any  inferences  with  probability 
from  this ;  still  we  are  left  in  no  doubt  as  to  the  more  gene- 
rally received  usage  of  the  Christian  church,  down  .to  a  pe- 
riod several  centuries  after  the  apostolic  age. 

"That  the  Greek  fathers,  and  the  Latin  ones  who  were 
familiar  with  the  Greek,  understood  the  usual  import  of  the 
word  /3atf<r££w,  would  hardly  seem  to  be  capable  of  a  denial. 
That  they  might  be  confirmed  in  their  view  of  the  import  of 
this  word,  by  common  usage  among  the  Greek  classic  au- 
thors, we  have  seen  in  the  first  part  of  this  dissertation." 

Prof.  S.  finds  evidence  so  early  as  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries,  of  the  rise  of  true  immersion,  the  candidates  being 
divested  of  their  garments  ;  but  instead  of  using  this  as  some 
of  his  brethren  do,  to  prove  that  the  act  of  immersion  itself, 
as  well  as  repeating  it  three  times,  and  that  mode  was  of  tra- 
ditionary origin,  he  candidly  declares  that  this  fact  strength- 
ens the  argument  for  immersion. 

"  Still,  say  what  we  may  concerning  it  in  a  moral  point  of 
view,  the  argument  to  be  deduced  from  it  in  respect  to  im- 
mei-sion,  is  not  at  all  diminished.  Nay,  it  is  strengthened. 
For  if  such  a  violation  of  decency  was  submitted  to,  in  order 
that  baptism  might  be  performed  as  the  church  thought  it 
should  be,  it  argues  that  baptizing  by  immersion  was  consid- 
ered as  a  rite  not  to  be  dispensed  with." 
2 


26  INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  hear  Prof.  S.'s  conclusion  in  view 
of  all  the  premises  he  has  so  satisfactorily  established,  viz.  : 
1st.  That  in  classic  usage  baptizo  means  to  dip,  to  immerse, 
&c.  2d.  That  in  the  Septuagint  and  Apocraphait  means  the 
same.  3d.  That  throughout  the  New  Testament,  when  not 
applied  to  the  rite  of  baptism,  its  meaning,  both  literal  and 
figurative,  is  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  overwhelm — no  instance 
occurring  where  it  is  undeniably  used  to  denote  sprinkling 
or  pouring  upon.  Fourthly,  and  finally,  that  it  is  a  thing 
clearly  and  certainly  made  out,  that  immersion  was  the  uni- 
versal practice  of  the  primitive  churches,  and  for  thirteen 
hundred  years  after  the  apostles,  except  in  extreme  cases.  We 
say  by  all  this  light  to  guide  him  to  a  conclusion,  what  does 
Prof.  S.  decide?  We  must  make  some  allowance  for  him — 
he  was  a  Pedobaptist,  a  professor  in  a  Presbyterian  Theo- 
logical School ;  he  had  himself  only  been  sprinkled.  Should 
he  take  the  uttermost  sand  from  under  effusion,  he  would 
confess  himself  unbaptized  ;  and  not  only  so,  but  that  all 
Presbyterians  were  equally  so  ;  and  doubtless  such  a.  position 
would  have  cost  him  his  professorship.  He  must  leave 
sprinkling  a  shadow  of  support ;  and  to  his  credit  be  it  said, 
he  leaves  it  only  the  faintest  shadow  imaginable.     Hear  him  : 

"For  myself,  then,  I  cheerfully  admit,  that  /3a<rr<£w,  in  the 
New  Testament,  when  applied  to  the  rite  of  baptism,  does  in 
all  probability  involve  the  idea,  that  this  rite  was  usually 
performed  by  immersion,  but  not  always.  I  say  usually, 
and  not  always  ;  for  to  say  more  than  this,  the  tenor  of  some 
of  the  narrations,  particularly  in  Acts  10:  47,  48  ;  16  :  32, 
33,  and  2  :  41,  seem  to  me  to  forbid.  I  cannot  read  these 
examples,  without  the  distinct  conviction  that  immersion  was 
not  practiced  on  these  occasions,  but  washing  or  affusion." 

We  conceive  that  this  admission  from  Prof.  S.  must  operate 
with  a  thousand-fold  more  power  upon  the  minds  of  Pedo- 
baptists,  to  convince  them  that  immersion,  and  immersion 


INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW.  27 

alone,  was  the  primitive  act,  than  the  ablest  volume  from 
the  pen  of  a  Baptist.  If  the  stubborn,  irresistible,  unbend- 
ing facts  of  the  case  are  sufficient  to  force  such  an  admission 
from  an  author  publicly  committed  to,  and  the  avowed  ad- 
vocate of,  an  opposite  practice,  what  would  be  the  conclusion 
of  an  uncommitted  and  impartial  man  ? 

But  Prof.  S.  nor  any  other  man  is  entitled  to  his  doubts, 
unless  he  can  show  a  reasonable  ground  to  doubt.  It  irre- 
sistibly follows,  as  a  logical  consequence,  that,  if  to  dip,  or  to 
immerse,  is  the  natural  signification  of  bajrtizo,  and  the  rite 
of  baptism  was  usuully  performed  by  immersion  in  the  days 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  that  it  was  invariably  so  per- 
formed, unless  in  those  peculiar  instances  where  an  obvious 
impossibility  can  be  shown.  Now  Prof.  S.  does  not  pretend 
that  he  can  find  one  such  instance,  but  candidly  confesses 
there  is  not  one  such.  He  only  claims  that  in  the  three 
passages  he  mentions,  affusion  would  have  been  more  con- 
venient. 

But  one  passage,  which  Prof.  S.  fully  warrants  us  to  trans- 
late, closes  this  discussion  for  ever.  "  There  is  one  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  immersion." 

Prof.  Stuart,  fully  convinced  that  he  has  entirely  surren- 
dered the  action  of  baptism  to  the  Baptists,  and  as  though 
concerned  for  the  result  to  leave  it  so,  raises  the  singular 
question,  "  Is  the  rite  essential  ?"  We  say  it  is  a  most 
astonishing  question  for  a  Protestant  to  ask,  "  Is  it  necessary 
to  observe  the  particular  rite  which  Christ  commanded  V 
For  a  man  or  a  church  to  assume  the  right  to  change  the 
laws  and  ordinances  of  Christ,  by  amendment,  substitution, 
addition,  or  diminution,  is  to  claim  the  exercise  of  Popish 
assumptions,  and  to  convict  himself  of  the  blasphemy  and 
impiety  of  Antichrist.  And  do  Protestants  confess  them- 
selves dissatisfied  with  the  ordinances  as  Christ  instituted 
them,  and  plead  to  be  allowed  to  change  them  to  suit  their 


28  INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW. 

tastes  and  conveniences  1  And  can  a  Christian  find  it  in  his 
heart  to  find  out  some  other  path  than  the  one  his  Saviour 
marked  out  for  his  disciples,  and  consecrated  by  his  own  foot- 
steps, or  to  climb  up  some  other  way  1  Is  not  the  language  of 
every  regenerated  heart,  "  I  esteem  all  thy  precepts  concern- 
ing all  things  to  be  right,  and  I  hate  every  false  way  V  and 
does  he  not  regard  the  solemn  injunctions  of  God,  "Ye  shall 
not  add  unto  the  word  which  I  command  you,  neither  shall  ye 
diminish  aught  from  it,  that  ye  may  keep  the  commandments 
of  the  Lord  your  God  which  I  now  command  you"  ?  And 
will  he  not  respect  the  approbation  of  the  Apostle,  "  Now  I 
praise  you,  brethren,  that  you  remember  me  in  all  things, 
and  keep  the  ordinances  as  I  delivered  them  to  you"  1  But, 
above  all,  will  he  not  cheerfully  acquiesce  in  the  last  com- 
mand of  his  Saviour,  teaching  them  to  observe  "  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you"  1  Now,  immersion  was 
one  of  the  "all  things ;"  for  when  Christ  commanded  his 
ministers  to  baptize,  and  his  disciples  to  be  baptized,  he, 
according  to  Prof.  S.'s  own  proving,  undoubtedly  com- 
manded the  former  to  immerse,  and  the  latter  to  be  im- 
mersed. How  can  a  Christian,  a  friend  and  lover  of  Christ, 
find  it  in  his  heart  to  desire  to  change  this  rite  by  substituting 
something  else  in  its  place? 

We  are  grieved  to  say  that  Prof.  S.  substantially  raises 
the  question,  "  Will  not  some  other  action  do  as  well  as  the 
one  Christ  appointed  V  and  he  pleads  that  it  will !  But,  still 
more  astounding  for  a  Protestant,  he  argues  through  a  score 
of  pages,  to  support  the  doctrine  of  the  "  Man  of  Sin"  and 
"Son  of  Perdition,"  that  the  Church  has  the  right  to  change 
the  rites  and  ordinances  of  Christ !  He  declares  that  he  most 
heartily  subscribes  to  this  opinion  of  John  Calvin  :  "  It  is  of 
no  consequence  at  all  whether  the  person  baptized  is  totally 
immersed,  or  whether  he  is  merely  sprinkled  by  an  affusion 
of  water.     This  should  be  a  matter  of  choice  to  the  churches 


INTRODUCTORY  REVIEW  29 

in  different  regions,  although  the  word  baptize  signifies  to  im- 
merse, and  the  rite  of  immersion  was  practiced  by  the  ancient 
Church.'''' 

This,  we  say,  is  the  baldest  feature  of  Antichrist :  "  and  lie 
shall  think  to  change  times  and  laws."  It  is  a  remarkable 
fact  that  all  Protestant  societies  claim  the  same  power.  The 
following  article  in  the  Methodist  Discipline  was  copied  from 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  of  the  Episcopal  Hierarchy, — 
for  we  cannot  call  it  Church. 

"  Every  particular  Church  may  ordain,  change,  or  abolish, 
rites  and  ceremonies,  so  that  all  things  may  be  done  to  edi- 
fication." 

The  whole  question  at  issue  between  Baptists  and  Pres- 
byterians and  Protestants,  touching  the  action  of  baptism,  is 
now  out  in  broad  daylight.  It  is  this  :  "  Have  we — has  the 
Church,  a  right  to  change  an  ordinance  of  Christ?  If  not, 
then  we  have  no  right  to  change  the  action  of  baptism.  If 
so,  then  we  have  a  right  to  change  every  ordinance  he 
instituted.  And  more,  since  the  power  to  change  implies 
the  power  to  enact  or  abolish,  then  we  have  the  right  to 
abolish  every  positive  institution  of  Christ,  and  enact  others 
to  suit  our  tastes  and  convenience.  These  conclusions  are- 
inevitable.  It  was  the  assumption  of  this  impious  right  that 
emboldened  the  Church  of  Rome  to  'change  and  ordain 
rites  and  ceremonies.'  " 

The  simple  question,  made  personal,  is  this  :  Since  Christ 
commands  me  to  be  immersed,  do  I  obey  him  if  I  am  sprin- 
kled or  poured  upon?  No  two  acts  are  more  unlike  than 
an  immersion  in  water,  and  a  few  drops  of  water  sprinkled 
upon  the  forehead,  or,  as  Presbyterians  now  sprinkle,  having 
the  moistened  fingers  of  the  minister  laid  upon  the  forehead 
(which,  by  the  way,  is  not  sprinkling).  To  walk,  to  ride,  to 
fly,  are  as  diverse  acts  as  to  immerse,  to  pour,  to  sprinkle. 
By  what  criterion  shall  we  decide  this  question1?     Baptists 


30  INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW. 

answer,  "  By  the  Scriptures,  and  common  sense."  We  open 
the  Scriptures  and  read,  "  What  things  soever  I  command 
you,  observe  to  do  it:  thou  shalt  not?  add  thereto,  nor 
diminish  from  it."  Can  any  one  suppose  that  God  was  so 
particular  that  the  minutest  direction  concerning  the  admin- 
istration of  the  rites  and  ordinances  of  the  tabernacle  should 
be  scrupulously  followed,  and  yet  we  be  left  with  impunity 
to  alter  or  amend,  change  or  abolish,  the  ordinances  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  to  accommodate  them  to"  our  tastes  or 
conveniences'?  When  God  commands  one  thing,  may 
we  obey  him  by  doing  something  altogether  different? 
God  commanded  Noah  to  make  an  ark  of  Gopher-wood : 
would  he  have  obeyed  the  command  had  he  made  it  of 
cypress  or  pine  ?  Prof.  S.  talks  about  the  "  essence" — the 
"  circumstance'1''  of  religion,  and  says  that  an  external  rite,  to 
all  intents  and  purposes  of  any  possible  consequence,  is  essen- 
tially preserved  or  performed  when  its  significance  is  essen- 
tially kept  up.  But  who  is  to  sit  upon  God's  commands,  and 
decide  the  essence  or  peculiar  significance  of  each,  so  that 
we  may  be  infallibly  certain,  in  every  case,  that  we  are 
"essentially"  obeying  the  command,  when  we  violate  its 
letter?  The  principle  laid  down  by  Prof.  S.  would  compel 
him  to  answer  with  the  Catholic,  "  The  Church,  sir."  But 
who,  or  what,  or  where  is  the  Church  ?  And  he  must  again 
reply,  "Why,  sir,  the  Church  is  the — the  Church;"  and  here 
the  circle  closes.  God  commanded  Abraham  to  offer  up 
Isaac.  Would  he  have  obeyed  God  had  he  taken  Ishmael  ? 
Might  not  Abraham  have  reasoned,  "The  essence  of  this 
command  is,  that  I  offer  up  one  of  my  sons,  and  he  leaves 
me  my  choice.  Ishmael  is  one  of  my  sons,  and  it  is  my 
choice,  for  several  reasons,  to  offer  him,  rather  than  Isaac !" 
Noah  might  have  reasoned,  "  The  essence  of  this  command 
is  to  build  an  ark :  the  particular  wood  commanded  to  be 
used  is  an  external  circumstance,  and  belongs  not  to  the 


INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW.  31 

essence ;  and  therefore  I  am  left  to  use  the  wood  most  conve- 
nient, and  that  will  be  the  easiest  to  work."  Abihu 
and  Nadab  may  have  reasoned  similarly  to  Prof.  S.,  but  it 
cost  them  their  lives  to  put  it  into  practice,  and  yet  they 
only  transgressed  a  rite  of  external  observance. 

The  following  language  of  Dr.  Dana,  an  eminent  Pedo- 
baptist,  when  rebuking  the  incipient  move,  on  the  part  of 
some,  to  substitute  water,  or  molasses  and  water,  for  the 
wine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  specious  reasonings  of 
Prof.  Stuart,  Chapin,  and  others,  who  argue  for  the  right  of 
the  Church  to  change  the  ordinances,  we  deem  equally  ap- 
propriate here  :  for  is  not  baptism  a  positive  institution,  and 
equally  important,  and  does  it  not  as  imperiously  demand 
our  unqualified  and  implicit  obedience,  as  the  Supper  %  If 
we  may  not  dare  to  change  the  one  ordinance  in  the  least 
respect,  will  we  presume  to  abolish  the  other  altogether,  as 
we  should  do  by  changing  the  action  from  immersion  to 
sprinkling  ;  for  baptism  is  a  rite,  and  a  rite  is  nothing  but  a 
mode  ;  to  change  the  mode  is  to  change  the  rife  :  it  is  abol- 
ishing one  rite,  and  instituting  another  in  its  place. 

"  Who  sees  not,"  says  he,  "  that  in  regard  to  positive 
Divine  institutions,  our  duty  is  equally  plain  and  imperious- — 
the  duty  of  unqualified,  implicit  submission  ?  Here  all  d  pri- 
ori reasonings  are  out  of  place ;  all  objections  are  palpably 
fallacious;  and  every  plan,  and  every  thought  of  change  or 
modification,  ought  to  be  resisted  with  horror.  The  positive 
institutions  of  heaven  are  emphatically  trials,  both  of  our 
faith  and  our  obedience.  They  bring  home  the  question, 
whether  we  will  submit  our  understanding  to  the  Divine 
guidance,  as  well  as  our  will  to  the  Divine  pleasure.  To 
oppose  them  is  to  dispute  Infinite  authority.  To  attempt 
their  improvement,  is  to  prefer  our  ignorance  to  the  wisdom 
of  Heaven.  To  dispense  with  them,  or  any  of  them,  is  to 
repeal  the  laws  of  the  Sovereign  of  the  universe."     (Eeview 


32  INTRODUCTORY   REVIEW. 

of  Chapin's  Essay  on  Sacramental  Use  of  Wine.     By  Rev. 
Daniel  Dana,  D.D.,  p.656.) 

Infant  baptism,  Prof.  S.  makes  not  the  slightest  effort  to 
defend.  He  considers  the  practice  proper  and  expedient, 
though  frankly  confesses  "  commands,  or  plain  and  certain 
examples  in  the  New  Testament,  relative  to  it,  I  do  not  find." 
What  then  are  his  grounds  1  He  says,  "  The  general  analogy 
of  the  ancient  dispensation  ;  the  enlargement  of  it  under  the 
new ;  the  silence  of  the  New  Testament."  But  does  the  old 
dispensation  furnish  any  analogy  ]  What  does  Prof.  S.  say 
elsewhere? — 

"  How  unwary,  too,  are  many  excellent  men,  in  contend- 
ing for  infant  baptism  on  the  ground  of  the  Jewish  analogy 
of  circumcision.  *  *  *  Numberless  difficulties  present  them- 
selves in  our  way,  as  soon  as  we  begin  to  argue  in  such  a 
manner  as  this." — Com.  0.  T.,  Ch.  22.  Again  :  "  The  Cove- 
vant  of  Circumcision  furnishes  no  ground  for  infant  baptism." 
— Lecture  on  Galatians. 

The  Old  Testament,  any  more  than  the  New  Testament, 
affords  us  no  warrant,  and  are  we  at  liberty  to  foist,  infant 
baptism  into  the  list  of  Church  ordinances  and  Christian 
duties,  because,  forsooth,  ive  may  deem  it  proper  or  expe- 
dient 1  The  establishment  of  such  a  principle  would  be  the 
opening  of  Pandora's  box,  and  crowd  the  Church  with  all 
the  traditions  and  senseless  mummeries  of  the  Romish  apos- 
tacy. 

We  have  now  noticed  this  work  of  Mr.  Stuart,  so  far  as 
our  limits  will  permit.  We  conceive  the  singular  weakness 
of  his  reasonings  as  a  Pcdobaptist,  and  the  popish  grounds 
he  is  compelled  to  take  in  attempting  to  sustain  the  practice 
of  sprinkling,  as  well  as  infant  baptism,  will  constitute  a  more 
powerful  argument  in  the  hands  of  Baptists,  than  even  the 
facts  which,  as  a  scholar,  he  so  frankly  admits. 

J.  R.  Graves. 

Nashville,  Jan.  1855. 


PREFACE. 

; ■ 

The  immediate  occasion  of  writing  the  present  dis- 
sertation, it  may  not  be  improper  to  state  by  quota- 
tions below  from  two  among  the  many  letters  that  I 
have  received  in  relation  to  the  subject  of  it.  It  has 
been  impossible  for  me  to  give  any  satisfactory  answer, 
in  the  way  of  private  letters,  to  my  correspondents 
making  inquiries  with  regard  to  the  subject  of  baptism. 
It  would  occupy  all  my  time,  and  be  nearly  a  fruitless 
labor,  to  attempt  it.  I  hope  to  be  borne  with  by  that 
class  of  readers  who  are  not  deeply  interested  in  a  dis- 
pute about  rites  and  forms,  when  I  appeal  to  them  and 
ask  them,  Whether  it  is  not  time  that  the  stumbling- 
block  so  often  thrown  in  the  way  of  Christians  respect- 
ing the  mode  of  baptism,  should  be  removed,  and  the 
churches  no  longer  divided  by  contentions  about  it  ? 
If  so,  and  if  the  following  pages  may  have  any  ten- 
dency towards  effecting  so  desirable  an  end,  then  such 
readers,  I  would  hope,  will  not,  all  things  considered, 
task  me  with  doing  amiss,  because  I  have  engaged  in 
the  present  discussion. 

The  letters  above  alluded  to  are  the  following ;  to 
which  a  brief  reply  will  be  found  at  the  close  of  this 
discussion : — 

Maulmein  and  Rangoon,  May,  1832. 

Eev.  and  Dear  Sir, — 

We  beg  leave  to  request  your  decision  on  the  fol- 

2*  (38) 


XXXIV  PREFACE. 

lowing  questions,  concerning  which  some  discrepancy 
of  opinion  obtains  among  the  members  of  our  mis- 
sion : — 

1.  In  translating  and  publishing  the  New  Testament 
in  the  language  of  Burmah,  shall  we  retain  or  reject 
the  disputed  passage  in  1  John  v.  7  ? 

2.  Shall  we  transfer  the  Greek  word  /Sawrt^w  into 
the  Burman  language,  when  it  relates  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptism,  or  translate  it  by  a  word  significant  of 
immersion,  or  by  a  word  of  some  other  import  ? 

3.  Are  the  words  contained  in  Acts.  xix.  5,  the 
words  of  Paul,  or  of  the  author ;  and  if  there  be  an 
ambiguity  in  the  original,  how  shall  we  decide,  when 
translating  into  a  language  like  the  Burman,  whose 
idiom  positively  requires  that  the  question  be  ascer- 
tained ? 

We  remain,  Rev.  and  dear  Sir, 

Most  respectfully  yours, 
C.  Bennett,  Jno.   Taylor  Jones,  A.  Judson, 

EUGENIO   KlNCAID,    J.    WADE. 

The  second  letter  is  anonymous,  but  is  evidently 
from  some  friend  who  appears  to  have  thought  seri- 
ously on  the  subject  of  baptism.  It  was  received  last 
December.  I  give  only  those  parts  which  have  relation 
to  the  arguments  in  the  case.     They  are  as  follows  : — 

December  3,  1832. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, — 

Allow  me  to  submit  the  following  remarks  to  your 
consideration : — 

First,  we  do  not  obey  the  command  of  Christ  to  be 


TREFACE.  XXXV 

baptized,  unless  we  are  immersed.  You  probably  will 
not  question  the  two  following  propositions  :  Baptism 
is  nothing  but  a  rite;  a  rite  is  nothing  but  a  form. 
Are  not,  then,  the  following  conclusions  just,  viz.,  that 
if  we  would  receive  the  baptism,  we  must  perform  the 
rite ;  and  that,  if  we  would  perform  the  rite,  we  must 
observe  the  form  ?  If  these  deductions  be  correct, 
will  it  not  follow,  that  if  we  are  immersed,  we  have 
observed  the  form ;  that  if  we  have  observed  the  form, 
we  have  performed  the  rite ;  and  that,  if  we  have  per- 
formed the  rite,  we  have  received  the  baptism,  or,  in 
other  words,  have  obeyed  the  Saviour's  command  to 
be  baptized  ?  If  we  are  sprinkled,  will  it  not  also  fol- 
low, that  we  have  not  observed  the  form  ;  that  if  we 
have  not  observed  the  form,  we  have  not  performed 
the  rite  ;  and  that,  if  we  have  not  performed  the  rite, 
we  have  not  received  the  baptism,  or,  in  other  words, 
have  not  obeyed  the  Saviour's  command  to  be  bap- 
tized? If  a  rite  be  nothing  but  a  form,  when  we 
change  the  form,  do  we  not  change  the  rite  itself? 
If  we  change  the  rite,  though  we  may  adopt  another, 
which  we  may  think  will  answer  the  design  of  the 
institution  as  well,  do  we  obey  his  directions  ?  Are 
we  not,  on  the  contrary,  undertaking  to  alter  what  we 
have  every  reason  to  believe  is  best,  as  he  ordered  it 
to  be? 

It  is  sometimes  said,  that  if  the  feelings  be  right,  it  is 
no  matter  about  the  form  ;  but,  from  the  reasoning  of 
the  preceding  paragraph,  it  appears,  that  while  the 
feelings  are  right,  the  form  should  be  observed,  if  we 
would  obey.     This  may  also  be  argued  from  the  com- 


XXXVI  PREFACE. 

mand  to  "  believe  and  be  baptized."  Here  are  two 
duties  enjoined.  The  first,  to  believe ;  the  second,  to 
be  immersed.  The  one  relates  to  the  feelings  with 
which  we  are  to  perform  the  rite ;  the  other  relates  to 
the  rite  or  form  enjoined,  viz.,  immersion.  The  appli- 
cation of  water  in  any  other  way  may  be  a  rite,  but  it 
is  not  the  rite  commanded.  He  who  has  believed,  has 
discharged  the  first  duty  ;  but  he  who  has  been  sprin- 
kled, has  not  discharged  the  second. 

Secondly,  the  evil  of  the  separation  which  is  pro- 
duced among  Christians,  by  their  different  views  of 
baptism,  is  very  great.  You  doubtless  have  noticed 
the  hard  and  angry  feelings  which,  by  conversation 
upon  this  subject,  have  been  excited  in  the  bosoms  of 
the  truly  pious.  You  have  lamented  the  influence  of 
this,  in  prejudicing  impenitent  men  against  the  Gospel ; 
in  delaying  the  anxious,  and  in  destroying  the  piety 
of  Christians.  You  have  seen  that  the  evil  is  great. 
But  who  causes  it  ?  Evidently  he  who  has  departed, 
in  practice,  from  the  form  laid  down  in  Scripture.  If 
this  form  be  immersion,  then  those  who  practise  sprink- 
ling have  departed  from  the  Bible.  They  have  caused 
the  evil ;  and  to  them  belongs  the  guilt. 

Thirdly,  it  is  desirable  that  this  should  be  done 
away.  Now,  how  can  this  best  be  effected?  How, 
but  by  every  Christian's  practising  the  form  laid  down 
in  Scripture  ?  Is  it  not,  then,  the  duty  of  every  one 
to  learn  the  form,  and  having  learned  it,  to  adhere  to 
it  ?  If  you  believe  the  form  to  be  immersion,  ought 
you  not  to  practise  this,  hoping  that  all  Christians  will 
do  the  same  ? 


PKEFACE.  XXXV11 

Perhaps  you  may  say,  if  I  should  renounce  sprink- 
ling, others  would  not ;  and  thus  the  separation  would 
still  continue.  Suppose  it  should,  yet  you  have  done 
your  duty,  and  given  your  influence  to  truth.  If  you 
excuse  yourself,  by  such  reasoning,  from  pursuing  this 
course,  the  moderate  drinker  may  excuse  himself  from 
total  abstinence  on  the  same  ground. 

Fourthly,  if  we  depart  in  the  least  from  the  Bible, 
either  in  doctrine  or  form,  we  are  not  safe — we  have 
no  stopping-place.  The  Roman  Catholics  have  de- 
parted widely  from  the  Bible  in '  their  ceremonies. 
The  forms  which  they  have  introduced  are  numerous. 
They  have  destroyed  the  life  of  religion  among  them. 
These,  however,  were  not  introduced  all  at  once. 
There  was  one  that  was  first  in  order.  If,  however, 
the  entrance  of  this  one  had  been  opposed,  how  differ- 
ent would  have  been  the  state  of  that  church !  Instead 
of  being  corrupt,  it  would  have  been  pure.  "We  are 
safe  only  by  adhering  closely  to  the  Bible.  Is  it  not, 
then,  the  duty  of  every  Christian  who  believes  immer- 
sion only  to  be  baptism,  to  practise  it  ? 

Fifthly,  as  those  who  are  not  immersed,  but  adopt  a 
form  of  man's  invention,  do  not  obey  the  Saviour's 
command,  so  they  will  not  (all  other  things  being 
equal)  enjoy  the  highest  seat  in  heaven.  Regeneration 
is  the  only  qualification  necessary  to  enter  there.  All 
who  have  been  born  again  will  see  Grod.  But  in 
heaven  there  are  different  grades  [degrees]  of  happi- 
ness. The  degree  which  each  will  enjoy,  will  be  pro- 
portioned to  the  fidelity  of  his  obedience.  To  explain 
more  fully  my  meaning :  of  two  persons,  who  have  in 


every  other  respect  thought,  and  acted,  and  spoken 
alike,  but  the  one  was  immersed  and  obeyed,  while  the 
other  was  sprinkled  and  did  not  obey ;  the  former  must 
have  a  higher  place  in  heaven  than  the  latter.  If, 
then,  he  would  be  as  happy  as  possible  in  heaven, 
ought  not  he  who  believes  immersion  only  to  be  bap- 
tism, to  practise  it  ? 

Nothing  is  more  common  than  to  hear  persons  say 
that  the  observance  of  the  form  is  not  essential.  If 
they  mean,  it  is  not  essential  in  order  to  enter  heaven, 
we  grant  it.  But  to  enjoy  the  most  happiness  there, 
it  is  essential ;  since  we  cannot  obey  unless  we  do  it, 
[i.  e.,  unless  we  are  immersed.] 

These  reasons  are  communicated  briefly ; .  but  if  you 
will  think  of  them,  you  can  supply  what  is  wanting. 
If  the  denomination  to  which  you  belong  are  in  an 
error  in  reference  to  baptism,  and  are  disobeying  the 
Saviour  ;  producing  this  separation,  with  its  attendant 
evils  ;  preventing  the  removal  of  this  separation  ;  ren- 
dering itself  insecure,  by  breaking  away  from  the  Bible ; 
and  are  pursuing  a  course  which  will  diminish  their 
happiness  in  heaven ; — ought  not  their  interests  in  this 
respect  to  suffer, — yea,  to  be  destroyed  ?  Ought  you 
not  to  give  [your  influence]  wholly  to  the  cause  of 
truth?  With  prayer  that  you  may  be  led  aright,  I 
close. 

An  Invisible  Hand. 

These  are  a  specimen  of  letters  which  I  often  receive. 
Sometimes  they  are  on  one  side  of  the  question,  and 
sometimes  on  the  other.    I  have  been  filled  with  regret, 


PREFACE.  XXXIX 

while  reading  sueli  letters,  that  questions  of  this  nature 
should  thus  agitate  the  Christian  Church  ;  but,  as  the 
matter  actually  is,  I  know  of  no  way  in  which  a  dis- 
cussion can  be  well  avoided.  I  have  engaged  in  it 
with  much  and  sincere  reluctance ;  but  if  I  must  en- 
gage, and  cannot  be  let  off  (which  really  seems  to  be 
the  case),  then  at  least  I  ought  not  to  spend  my  time 
in  beating  the  air.  I  may  possibly  accomplish  thus 
much,  if  nothing  more,  viz.,  I  may  be  the  means  of 
turning  the  attention  of  other  minds  to  the  whole  sub- 
ject ;  and  the  result  of  this  may  be,  the  foial  removal 
of  the  difficulties  that  now  agitate  so  many  churches. 
If  my  discussion  should  be  the  occasion  of  this,  it  will 
not  be  in  vain  that  I  have  expended  so  much  time  and 
pains  upon  it. 

M.  STUAKT. 


MODE 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM 


§  1.  Form  and  Classical  Use  of  the  word  fiatr-ifa. 

.  The  original  etymological  root  of  the  verbs  fia-nrifa, 
fidTTTG),  as  also  of  the  nouns  pdnrtoig,  fid-nrw\ia,  (3anTi- 
ofxog,  (5a7T~iOTfipiov,  $cmTio-T\g,  (iaiTTpia,  fiacp^,  0a(pvg, 
ftcMpelov,  (3a(piKrj,  (3dipi[wg,  Bdxpig,  and  in  like  manner  of 
the  adjectives  or  verbals  fia-nrog,  Qafaicog,  Qdifjifiog, — 
appears  plainly  to  be  the  monosyllable  BAIT.  In  all 
the  words  derived  from  this  root,  there  is  a  similarity 
of  meaning  which  shows  an  intimate  connection  be- 
tween them. 

As  to  the  formation  of  the  words,  some  of  them 
adopt  the  smooth  and  others  the  rough  consonant  or 
mute,  as  grammarians  call  letters  of  this  class,  viz.,  it 
and  (j)i  sometimes  with,  and  sometimes  without,  any 
special  variation  of  meaning.  The  leading  and  origi- 
nal meaning  of  BAIT  seems  to  have  been  dipping, 
plunging,  immersing,  soaking,  or  drenching,  in  some 
liquid  substance.  As  kindred  to  this  meaning,  and 
closely  united  with  it,  i.  e.,  as  an  effect  resulting  from 
such  a  cause,  the  idea  of  dyeing,  colouring,  tinging, 

(41) 


42  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

seems  also  to  have  been  often  associated  with  the  ori- 
ginal root,  and  to  have  passed  into  many  of  its  derivates. 
For  example :  fia-rxTog,  dipped,  immersed,  coloured ; 
pdnTG),  to  dip,  plunge,  dye,  colour;  fiafievg,  a  dyer,  usually 
limited  to  this  signification ;  (3a<pfj,  dipping,  plunging, 
immersing,  the  act  of  colouring,  colouring -stuff  or  mat- 
ter, dye  ;  fiacjuitog,  what  belongs  or  is  appropriate  to  dip- 
ping, immersing,  or  to  colouring,  dyeing ;  $a$LKf\  (sc. 
Texvrj),  the  art  of  dyeing ;  (3a(pelov,  a  dyer's  workshop  ; 
fiaxpcg,  the  act  of  immersion,  or  of  dyeing  ;  fidipcuog,  to  be 
immersed  (quasi  immer sable),  or  to  be  coloured;  all  of 
which  shew  that  there  is  a  frequent  interchange  of 
meaning  iu  the  above  derived  words,  and  a  similarity 
between  them  all ;  and  also  that  the  two  ideas  of  im- 
mersion and  of  dyeing  or  colouring  lie  at  the  basis  of 
the  words  derived  from  BAIT,  in  most  of  their  forms ; 
although,  in  a  few  cases,  usage  has  confined  some  par- 
ticular words  among  these  derivates  solely  to  one  class 
of  meanings ;  e.  g.,  fiafavg,  a  dyer,  fiatyeiov,  a  dyer's  shop, 
(3diTTiaig,  immersion,  submersion,  washing,  etc.  Such  a 
limited  usage  of  a  few  of  these  derivative  nouns,  how- 
ever, is  probably  the  result  merely  of  convenience  and 
custom,  and  lies  not  in  the  original  nature  itself  of  the 
words  thus  employed ;  for  as  they  are  obviously  from 
the  root  BAIT,  so  they  might  be  employed,  if  usage  had 
thus  determined,  like  nearly  all  its  other  numerous 
derivates,  in  the  twofold  sense  of  dipping  or  inn  min- 
ing, and  of  dyeing  or  colouring. 

For  the  present,  I  merely  state  the  fact  in  relation 
to  these  several  meanings  of  the  root' BATE  and  its 
derivates.     The  reader  is  desired  particularly  to  notice 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  43 

what  has  been  stated,  viz.,  that  while  most  of  tne  nouns 
derived  from  BAII  have  a  twofold  sense,  that  of 
immersion  and  that  of  dyeing,  yet  some  of  them  are 
employed  only  in  one  sense  exclusively,  either  that  of 
immersion,  or  that  of  dyeing.  We  shall  see,  in  the 
sequel,  that  the  verbs  jSarrrw  and  Pairr't^G)  have  distinc- 
tions of  meaning  analogous  to  these  —  distinctions 
which  are  never  confounded  by  usage ;  while  they  both 
agree  in  one  common  and  original  meaning,  viz.,  that 
of  immersion  or  plunging. 

In  the  brief  view  given  above,  I  have  supposed  the 
original  and  literal  meaning  of  the  root  BAIT  to  be 
that  of  dipping  or  plunging ;  and  accordingly  I  have 
arranged  this  meaning  so  as  to  stand  first  in  order. 
Still,  some  may  be  disposed  to  consider  this  as  not 
altogether  certain.  They  may  perhaps  maintain,  that 
the  idea  of  BAIT  was  to  tinge,  dye,  or  colour ;  and  that 
the  idea  of  plunging  or  dipping  was  derived  from  this, 
because,  in  order  to  accomplish  the  work  of  dyeing, 
the  act  of  plunging  or  dipping  was  necessary.  But  as 
the  idea  of  immersing  or  plunging  is  common  to  both 
the  words  pdnro)  and  fia-rrri^u),  while  that  of  dyeing  or 
colouring  belongs  only  to  (3d,7TTG),  it  would  seem  alto- 
gether probable,  that  the  former  signification  is  the 
more  usual  and  natural  one,  and  therefore  more  proba- 
bly the  original  one.  Accordingly  I  have  so  arranged 
it  in  my  statement  above;  but  at  the  same  time,  it 
should  be  understood,  that  the  signification  of  dyeing 
or  colouring,  as  attached  to  the  word  j3dnro),  and  many 
forms  derived  from  it,  is  not  less  certain  than  the  sig- 
nification of  dipping  or  immersing.     If  the  reader  will 


44  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

keep  this  in  mind,  he  will  be  enabled  in  the  sequel 
easily  to  solve  some  cases,  concerning  which  there  has 
been  dispute  among  those  who  have  defended  views 
that  widely  differ  in  regard  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  rite  of  baptism  should  be  performed. 

In  addition  to  the  two  fundamental  meanings  of  the 
word  pdnrcj  as  derived  from  BAIT,  there  are  other 
derived  or  secondary  meanings  of  the  word,  which 
will  of  course  be  noted  in  the  sequel,  when  we  come 
more  fully  to  consider  this  subject.  My  present  object, 
and  the  one  first  in  order,  is  merely  to  illustrate,  in  an 
intelligible  way,  the  different  forms  of  the  respective 
words.  I  do  this  first,  in  order  that  we  may  see 
whether  Pclttto  and  (ia-rrric,^  are  really  synonymous,  as 
they  have  often  been  asserted  to  be ;  or  whether  they 
have,  in  some  respects,  a  real  diversity  of  significa- 
tion— a  question  not  without  importance  in  regard  to 
the  object  before  us. 

It  is  seldom  that  any  language  has  two  words  which 
in  all  respects  are  synonymous,  and  are  both  in  com- 
mon usage  at  one  and  the  same  time.  Synonymous 
words  may  indeed  exist  in  a  language,  when  a  recent 
form  of  a  word  is  substituted  for  a  more  ancient  one 
of  the  same  meaning ;  or  when  a  word  of  foreign  origin 
coexists  with  one  that  is  indigenous  and  of  the  same 
meaning,  as  is  the  case  in  our  language  with  regard  to 
a  great  number  of  words  derived  from  the  Latin, 
Greek,  French,  etc.,  which  coexist  with  our  indige- 
nous Anglo-Saxon  words ;  or  lastl}7",  Avords  of  different 
forms  and  yet  synonymous  in  sense,  may  exist  in  a 
language  which   has   different    dialectical   variations, 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  45 

such  as  the  ancient  Greek  exhibited.  But  do  any  of 
these  reasons  exist  in  respect  to  /3a7trw  and  (ia-nri^,  so 
that  on  account  of  them  we  may  take  these  words  as 
in  all  respects  synonymous  ? 

In  quite  ancient  times,  we  find  evidence  of  some 
difference  being  supposed  to  exist  between  them.  For 
example,  Tertullian  says:  "Dehinc  ter  mergitamur" 
Corona  Militis,  c.  8.  Jerome  (ad vers.  Luciferianos) 
also  says,  "  Nam  et  multa  alia,  quae  per  traditionem  in 
ecclesiis  observantur ;  velut  in  lavacro  ter  caput  mer- 
gitare"  etc.  Now  mergito  is  a  frequentative  form  of 
mergo.  At  the  same  time,  however,  these  fathers,  and 
others  who  wrote  in  Latin,  often  and  commonly  use 
the  words  tingo,  mergo,  demergo,  in  order  to  express  the 
idea  conveyed  by  Pami^a) ;  especially  do  they  employ 
tingo  and  mergo.  By  these  latter  words,  in  fact,  do 
the  Latin  ecclesiastical  writers  for  the  most  part  render 
/JaTTr^a),  when  they  really  translate  the  word;  for 
oftentimes,  iike  our  English  version,  they  employ  the 
original  word  itself,  baptizo,  in  order  to  represent  the 
Greek  fiaTTri^G),  merely  making  it  conform  to  the  Latin 
mode  of  inflection. 

It  would  appear,  then,  that  a  feeling  existed  among 
some  of  the  Latin  fathers,  when  they  rendered  fSanri^G) 
by  mergito,  that  fianTi^o  is,  in  its  appropriate  sense, 
what  the  grammarians  and  lexicographers  call  a  fre- 
quentative verb,  i.e.,  one  which  denotes  repetition  of  the 
action  which  it  indicates.  ISTor  are  they  alone  in  this. 
Some  of  the  best  Greek  scholars  of  the  present  and 
past  age,  have  expressed  the  same  opinion  in  a  more 
definite  shape. 


46  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

Buttman  lays  it  down  as  a  principle  of  the  Greek 
language,  that  a  class  of  verbs  in  -£gj,  formed  from 
other  verbs,  have  the  signification  of  frequentatives, 
Gramm.  §  119. 1.  5.  2.  Eost  lays  down  the  same  prin- 
ciple, Gramm.  §  94.  2.  b.  Both  appeal,  by  way  of 
confirming  their  opinion,  to  such  examples  as  otevg), 
to  groan  or  sigh,  orevdfa,  to  sigh  or  groan  often  or  much  ; 
alreu),  to  ask,  airifa,  to  beg,  i.e.,  to  ask  repeatedly  ;  epircj,  to 
creep,  epni^cj,  to  creep  along,  to  continue  creeping  •  pirrro), 
to  cast  or  throw,  pLTrrd^o),  to  throw  hither  and  thither.  In 
accordance  with  this,  Stephens  and  Vossius  have  given 
their  opinions ;  and  the  highest  authorities  of  recent 
date  in  lexicography  have  decided  in  the  same  way. 
Passow,  Bretschn eider,  and  Donnegan,  all  affirm  that 
(3anTi^o)  originally  and  properly  means  to  dip  or  plunge 
often  or  repeatedly. 

With  all  deference  to  such  masters  of  the  Greek 
language,  and  with  the  full  acknowledgment  that  fre- 
quentative verbs  may  be,  and  actually  are,  formed  in 
the  way  just  stated,  I  must  still  doubt  whether  the 
sense  offrequentativeness  belongs  essentially  to  verbs  of 
this  prolonged  form,  which  are  derived  from  other 
verbs  of  a  shorter  and  more  simple  form.  My  mean- 
ing is,  that  although  frequentative  verbs  may  be  easily 
and  naturally  formed  in  this  way ;  and  although  this 
mode  of  formation  accords  well  with  the  genius  of  the 
Greek  language  ;  yet  still,  it  is  rather  owning  to  special 
usage,  in  some  cases  and  with  regard  to  particular 
words,  that  this  prolonged  form  is  employed  in  this 
way,  than  to  any  absolute  general  usage  or  to  the 
nature  of  the  case.     Proof  will  be  necessary  to  sustain 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  47 

suck  a  declaration  against  such  authorities  ;  and  I  pro- 
ceed to  adduce  it. 

Thus  jSAucd,  to  bubble  up,  to  gush  forth,  has  a  kindred 
verb  pXvfa,  of  the  same  meaning ;  op/coco,  to  bind  by 
oath,  to  adjure,  and  6piri$(o  the  same;  dXeyu,  to  take  care 
of,  to  attend  to,  dXeyifa  the  same,  with  the  exception 
that  dXey w  is  not  only  employed  in  this  sense,  but  also 
in  the  sense  of  reckoning  up,  computing ;  shades  of 
meaning  which  do  not  appear  to  be  attached  to  dXeyifa. 
Jn  like  manner  ei9w,  to  be  accustomed,  to  be  wont,  and 
£#t£w  in  the  same  sense;  ?)#«j  to  sift,  to  strain,  and 
rjM^o)  the  same ;  icavaxco)  to  ring,  to  resound,  navaxifa 
the  same. 

In  some  of  the  like  examples,  there  is  a  slight  shade 
of  difference  in  the  meaning  of  the  simple  and  derived 
verbs.  'AAey^w  and  dXeyo)  above  are  an  instance,  to 
show  that  one  of  the  verbs  has  greater  latitude,  in 
actual  usage,  than  the  other.  So  dvo)  means'  to  burn 
incense,  to  sacrifice,  to  move  violently,  to  be  in  a  stale  of 
fury,  to  be  boisterous,  while  dv a£w  is  usually  confined  to 
the  meanings  of  sacrificing  and  raving  ;  (3opf3opoo)  means 
to  cover  with  mud,  to  change  into  mire,  while  (3opf3opifa 
means  to  resemble  mud  or  mire  or  dung,  to  smell  of  mud, 
etc. ;  dv&EUi,  to  bloom,  to  grow  up  in  a  flourishing  man- 
ner, and  dv-Si^G),  to  adorn  with  flowers,  to  deck  with  gar- 
lands ;  ttXovteg),  to  be  rich,  and  ttXovti^g),  to  make  rich  ; 
denrveu,  to  sup,  and  deirrvi^G),  to  give  a  supper  to  others, 
etc. 

How  natural  it  is,  where  two  kindred  words  exist  in 
any  language,  to  give  one  a  direction  in  practice  some- 


48  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

what  different  from  the  other,  is  abundantly  illustrated 
by  the  examples  just  produced. 

But  still,  the  attentive  and  intelligent  reader  will  of 
course  remark  for  himself,  that  the  variations  now 
before  us  are  not  of  such  a  nature  as  to  establish  the 
position  that  a  frequentative  sense  is  attached  to  verbs 
in  -£«,  derived  from  other  verbs.  Gale  asserts  that 
not  only  these  verbs  just  mentioned,  but  infinita  olia, 
are  of  the  tenor  above  described ;  and  that  "  the  com- 
mon criticism,"  which  makes  ^aixri^  a  diminutive 
instead  of  a  frequentative,  "  is  nothing  but  a  ridiculous 
piece  of  pedantry." — Refl.  on  WalVs  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bo.pt. 
p.  217.  That  the  opinion  which  he  condemns  has  no 
foundation  in  truth,  I  deem  to  be  quite  certain.  But 
that  the  opposite  opinion,  which  makes  Pa-nrifa  a  fre- 
quentative (if  by  this  it  is  designed  to  imply  that  it  is 
necessarily  so  by  the  laws  of  formation,  or  even  by 
actual  usage),  is  equally  destitute  of  a  solid  foundation, 
I  feel  constrained,  on  the  whole,  to  believe.  The  lexi- 
cographers who  have  assigned  this  meaning  to  it, 
appear  to  have  done  it  on  the  ground  of  theoretical 
principles  as  to  the  mode  of  formation.  They  have 
produced  no  examples  in  point.  And  until  these  are 
produced,  I  must  abide  by  the  position  that  a  frequent- 
ative sense  is  not  necessarily  attached  to  (ianTi^o) ;  and 
that,  if  it  ever  have  this  sense,  it  is  by  a  speciality  of 
usage  of  which  I  have  been  able  to  find  no  example. 

I  am  unable  to  determine,  from  the  grammars  of 
Buttmann  and  Eost,  as  cited  above,  whether  they 
intend  to  give  it  as  their  opinion,  that  all  verbs  in  -£w, 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  49 

derived  from  other  verbs  which  are  shorter  and  more 
simple,  have  a  frequentative  sense.  They  merely 
assert  the  fact,  that  to  such  verbs  belongs  such  a  mean- 
ing ;  without  denning  any  limits,  in  respect  to  the  prin- 
ciple which  they  lay  down.  This  is  leaving  the  matter 
at  loose  ends ;  inasmuch  as  the  reader  can  never  deter- 
mine, by  what  they  say,  Whether  they  mean  to  lay 
down  a  universal  principle  of  language,  or  whether 
they  mean  merely  to  aver  that  there  are  frequentative 
verbs  in  the  Greek  language,  which  take  the  form  in 
question. 

To  the  latter  proposition  I  fully  and  readily  accede ; 
of  the  former,  I  have  already  given  reasons  why  we 
should  doubt.  Indeed,  there  is  not  a  single  lexico- 
grapher, so  far  as  I  know,  who  has  been  consistent 
with  himself,  if  he  holds  to  the  general  principle  in 
question.  Even  Passow  and  Bretschneider,  and  Don- 
negan,  "  quos  facile  principes  nominarem,"  and  who 
have  all  attributed  to  fianri^u)  the  sense  of  a  frequent- 
ative, have  given  to  many  of  the  verbs  in  -co  and  -£w, 
named  above,  the  very  same  sense;  and  have  thus 
shown  that  they  do  not  regard  the  principle  concern- 
ing frequentatives,  as  laid  down  in  the  grammars,  to 
be  any  thing  more  than  one  of  partial  application. 
That  it  actually  applies  in  real  usage  to  (3a7rri<;o),  none 
of  them  have  even  attempted  to  prove  by  examples. 

What,  then,  is  the  foundation  of  such  an  assertion, 
in  writers  of  such  distinguished  knowledge  and  acute- 
ness  as  the  grammarians  and  lexicographers  men- 
tioned above  ?  Two  reasons,  as  it  seems  to  me,  may 
be  given  for  it  with  probability ;  first,  that  there  are 


50  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

some  clear  and  undoubted  cases  in  which  verbs  in  -£w 
have  a  frequentative  sense ;  as  in  otcvo)  arevdCu),  aired) 
alri^oi,  tpTTU)  epm^o),  pinro)  pcirrd^o) ;  secondly,  that  the 
usage  of  the  Greek  language  forms  many  verbs  in  -£w 
in  such  a  way,  that  they  denote  usual,  customary,  or 
often-repeated  and  habitual  action ;  e.  g.,  '  EXXnvi^o), 
to  speak  as  a  Greek,  (3ap(3api^(o,  to  act  or  speak  as  a  for- 
eigner, 2kv#££g),  to  act  like  a  Scythian,  ^iXitttti^o),  to  take 
part  with  Philip,  etc.  The  frequency  and  extent  of  the 
two  classes  of  verbs  just  named,  would  seem  to  give 
some  colouring  to  the  assertion,  that  verbs  in  -£«,  gene- 
rally, might  be  considered  as  a  species  of  intensive 
verbs ;  but  Buttmann  himself  avers  (and  very  rightly), 
in  another  place,  that  verbs  of  this  ending  can  be 
reduced  to  no  definite  species,  §  119.  I.  3.  d.  Let 
the  reader  consult  ducd^o),  ix]n.L\idC)w,  jxeXi^o),  depi^co, 
XanTi^o),  etc. 

On  the  whole,  I  am  unable  to  make  out  for  verbs  in 
-£a>,  any  peculiarity  of  meaning,  as  appropriate  to  them 
only.  Not  even  where  they  are  derived  from  more 
simple  verbs,  does  such  a  difference  always,  or  even 
more  usually,  exist.  It  follows,  then,  that  we  are  to 
regard  (iaTrri^uy,  so  far  as  its  mere  form  is  concerned, 
and  unless  there  are  special  reasons  for  viewing  it  dif- 
ferently, as  only  an  example  of  a  prolonged  and  second- 
ary form  of  a  verb ;  of  which  there  are  so  many  scores 
of  examples  in  the  Greek  language,  particularly  in  the 
Present  and  Imperfect  tenses. 

Dismissing,  then,  the  question  of  mere  form,  let  us 
now  inquire,  whether  in  actual  usage  /3a7rr^w  has  a 
different  meaning  from  fid-n-u).     In  particular,   is   it 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  51 

distinguished  from  (Sdrrru  by  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  ? 

The  answer  to  these  questions  will  be  fully  devel- 
oped in  the  sequel.  I  have  already  intimated  that 
Pan-i^G)  is  distinguished  from  (3airT(o  in  its  meaning. 
I  now  add,  that  it  is  not,  like  this  latter  word,  used  to 
designate  the  idea  of  colouring  or  dyeing ;  while  in 
some  other  respects,  it  seems,  in  classical  use,  to  be 
nearly  or  quite  synonymous  with  j3dnrco.  In  the  New 
Testament,  however,  there  is  one  other  marked  dis- 
tinction between  the  use  of  these  verbs.  Banri^o)  and 
its  derivates  are  exclusively  employed,  when  the  rite  of 
baptism  is  to  be  designated  in  any  form  whatever ;  and 
in  this  case,  ^a-rrw  seems  to  be  purposely,  as  'well  as 
habitually,  excluded. 

Let  us  come  now,  for  the  fuller  development  of  this 
matter,  to  the  more  important  part  of  our  inquiry 
under  the  first  head,  viz.,  What  are  the  classical  mean- 
ings of  (3dnT(o  and  (3airrit;co  1  In  some  measure  I  have 
been  obliged  to  anticipate  the  answer  to  this  inquiry, 
in  the  statements  which  I  have  already  made ;  but  I 
come  now  to  the  exhibition  of  the  grounds  on  which  we 
must  rest  the  positions  that  have  been  advanced,  and 
others  also  which  are  still  to  be  advanced. 

1.  BaTiTO)  and  (3a7TTi^o)  mean  to  dip,  plunge,  or  inn- 
merge,  into  any  thing  liquid.  All  lexicographers  and 
critics  of  any  note  are  agreed  in  this.  My  proof  of 
this  position,  then,  need  not  necessarily  be  protracted ; 
but  for  the  sake  of  ample  confirmation,  I  must  beg  the 
reader's  patience,  while  I  lay  before  him,  as  briefly  as 
may  be,  the  results  of  an  investigation,  which  seems  to 


52  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

leave  no  room  for  doubt.  Take  the  following  examples 
from  the  classics: 

Homer,  Od.  I.  392:  As  when  a  smith  dips  or 
PLUNGES  (j3dnTei)  a  hatchet  or  huge  pole-ax  into  cold 
water,  viz.,  to  harden  them  [it]. 

Pindar,  Pyth.  II.  139,  describes  the  impotent  malice 
of  his  enemies,  by  representing  himself  to  be  like  the 
cork  upon  a  net  in  the  sea,  which  does  not  sink :  As 
when  a  net  is  cast  into  the  sea,  the  cork  swims  above,  so  am 
I  UNPLUNGED  (dftaTTTioTog) ;  on  which  the  Greek 
scholiast,  in  commenting,  says  :  "  As  the  cork  ov  dvvei, 
does  not  sink,  so  I  am  dftd-miGrog,  unplunged,  not  im- 
mersed. .  .  .  The  cork  remains  dfidrrTiorog,  and  swims 
on  the  surface  of  the  sea,  being  of  a  nature  which  is 
dj3dTTTtorog ;  in  like  manner  I  am  dftdnTiOTog."  In  the 
beginning  of  this  explanation,  the  scholiast  says : 
"  Like  the  cork  of  a  net  in  the  sea,  ov  ParrTifrnai,  lam 
not  plunged  or  sunk."  The  frequent  repetition  of  the 
same  words  and  sentiment,  in  this  scholion,  shows,  in 
all  probability,  that  it  is  compiled  from  different  anno- 
tators  upon  the  text.  But  the  sense  of  fia-nTc^u)  in  all, 
is  too  clear  to  admit  of  any  doubt. 

Aristotle,  de  Color,  c.  4,  says:  By  reason  of  heat  and 
moisture,  the  colours  enter  into  the  pores  of  things 
dipped  into  them  (ruv  fianTo^ievojv) .  De  Anima, 
III.  c.  12.  If  a  man  DIPS  {fid^eie)  any  thing  into  wax, 
it  is  moved  so  far  as  it  is  dipped.  Hist.  Animal.  VIII. 
c.  2,  speaking  of  certain  fish,  he  says :  They  cannot 
endure  great  changes,  such  as  thai,  in  the  summer-time, 
THEY  SHOULD  PLUNGE  (piiTTQfft)  into  cold  water. 
Ibid.  c.  29,   he  speaks  of  giving  diseased   elephants 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  53 

warm  water  to  drink,  and  DIPPING  (pdnTovrec)  hay  into 
honey  for  them. 

Aristophanes,  in  his  comedy  of  Tlie  Clouds,  Act  I. 
Sc.  2,  represents  Socrates  as  gravely  computing  how 
many  times  the  distance  between  two  of  its  legs,  a  flea 
could  spring  at  one  leap ;  and  in  order  to  ascertain  this, 
the  philosopher  first  melted  a  piece  of  wax,  and  then 
talcing  the  flea,  he  DIPPED  or  PLUNGED  (evifiaipe)  two  of 
its  feet  into  it,  etc. 

Heraclides  Ponticus,  a  disciple  of  Aristotle,  Allegor. 
p.  495,  says  :  Yfhen  a  piece  of  iron  is  taken  red  hot  from 
the  fire,  and  PLUNGED  in  the  water  (vdan  fia-nTi&rai), 
the  heat,  being  quenched  by  the  peculiar  nature  of  the 
water,  ceases. 

Herodotus,  in  Euterpe,  speaking  of  an  Egyptian 
who  happens  to  touch  a  swine,  says :  Going  to  the  river 
[Nile'],  he  DIPS  Jmmelf  (ej3aipe  eoivrov)  with  his  clothes. 

Aratus,  in  his  Phaenom.  v.  650,  speaks  of  the  con- 
stellation Cepheus  as  dipping  {(36,tttg)v)  his  head  or 
upper  part  into  the  sea.  In  v.  858  he  says :  If  the  sun 
DIP  (PaTT-oi)  himself  cloudless  into  the  western  flood. 
Again,  in  v.  951,  If  the  crow  has  DIPPED  (e(3diparo)  his 
head  into  the  river,  etc. 

Xenophon,  Anab.  II.  2.  4,  describes  the  Greeks  and 
their  enemies  as  sacrificing  a  goat,  a  bull,  a  wolf,  and  a 
ram,  and  DIPPING  ([3d7rrovTsg)  into  a  shield  [filled  with 
their  blood],  the  Greeks  the  sword,  the  Barbarians  the 
spear,  in  order  to  make  a  treaty  that  could  not  be 
broken. 

Plutarch,  Parall.  Graec.  Rom.  p.  545,  speaking  of 
the  stratagem  of  a  Roman  general,  in  order  to  ensure 


51  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

victory,  says:  He  set  up  a  trophy,  on  which,  dipping 
his  hand  into  blood  (elg  to  al\ia  .  .  .  (3imTioac),  he  wrote 
this  inscription,  etc.  In  Yol.  VI.  p.  680  (edit.  Eeiske), 
he  speaks  of  iron  PLUNGED  (fiaTTTopevov),  viz.,  into 
water,  in  order  to  harden  it.  Ibid.  p.  633,  plunge 
(j3dnTioov)  yourself  into  the  sea.  Yol.  X.  p.  118,  Then 
PLUNGING  (j3aTTTi$u)v)  himself  into  the  lake  Copais. 

Lucian,  Yol.  I.  p.  139,  represents  Timon,  the  man- 
hater,  as  saying:  If  a  winter 's  flood  should  carry  away 
any  one,  and  he,  stretching  out  his  hands,  should  beg  for 
help,  I  would  press  down  the  head  of  such  an  one  lohen 
SINKING  (!3a7TTi^ovTa),  so  that  he  could  not  rise  up  again. 

Diodorus  Siculus,  edit.  Heyne  IY.  p.  118,  Whose 
ship  being  SUNK  or  MERGED  (f3anTia&eiang).  Some 
other  editions  read  (Zvdiodeione,  plunged  into  the  deep, 
which  is  a  good  gloss. 

Plato,  De  Repub.  IY.  p.  637,  represents  dyers,  who 
wish  to  make  a  permanent  colour,  as  first  choosing  out 
wool,  sorting  and  working  it  over,  and  then  (ftdftTovai) 
they  plunge  it,  viz.,  into  the  dye-stuff. 

Epictetus,  III.  p.  69,  ed.  Schwiegh.  in  a  fragment  of 
his  work  says:  As  you  ivould  not  ivish,  sailing  in  a 
large  ship  adorned  and  abounding  with  gold,  to  BE  SUNK 
or  IMMERGED  (PanTi&odai),  so,  etc. 

Hippocrates,  p.  532,  edit.  Basil :  Shall  I  not  laugh 
at  the  man  who  SINKS  (flaTTTioovra)  his  ship  by  overload- 
ing it,  and  then  complains  of  the  sea  for  ingulfing  it  with 
its  cargo?  On  p.  50,  TO  DIP  (pdnreiv)  the  probes  in 
some  emollient.  P.  51,  DIPPING  (f3dipaoa)  the  rag  in 
ointment,  etc.     P.  101.   Cakes  dipped  (liLfianTo^evoi) 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  55 

into  sour  swine.  P.  145,  DIPPING  (/3a7rro)v)  sponges  in 
warm  water.  And  in  the  same  way,  in  all  parts  of  his 
book,  in  instances  almost  without  number. 

Strabo,  Lib.  VI.  p.  421,  speaking  of  a  lake  near 
Agrigentum,  says:  Tilings  that  elsewhere  cannot  float, 
DO  NOT  SINK  (/irj  panTi^eodaL)  in  the  water  of  this  lake, 
but  swim  in  tlie  manner  of  wood.  XII.  p.  809,  If  one- 
shoots  an  arrow  into  the  channel  [of  a  certain  rivulet  in 
Cappadocia],  the  force  of  the  water  resists  it  so  much,  that 
it  will  scarcely  PLUNGE  IN  (PaTTri&odcu) .  XIV.  p.  982, 
They  [the  soldiers]  marched  a  whole  day  through  the 
water,  PLUNGED  IN  (fiaTTTL^ofxivojv)  up  to  the  waist. 
XVI.  p.  1108,  The  bitumen  floats  on  the  top  [of  the  lake 
Sirbon],  because  of  the  nature  of  the  water,  which  admits 
of  no  diving  ;  nor  can  any  one  who  enters  it  PLUNGE  IN 
(j3a7rri^ea^a),  but  is  borne  up. 

Polybius,  III.  72,  The  foot  soldiers  passed  through  [the 
water]  scarcely  immersed  to  the  paps.     See  also  V.  47. 

Josephus,  Ant.  IX.  10,  speaking  of  the  ship  in  which 
Jonah  was,'  says  uiXXovroc  PaTrri^ea^ai  rov  cwacpovc,  the 
ship  being  about  TO  SINK.  In  the  History  of  his  own 
Life,  speaking  of  a  voyage  to  Eome,  during  which  the 
ship  that  carried  him  foundered  in  the  Adriatic,  he 
says:  Our  ship  being  immersed  or  sinking  ((3o,ttti- 
adevroc)  in  the  midst  of  the  Adriatic.  Speaking  of 
Aristobulus  as  having  been  drowned  by  command 
of  Herod,  Bell.  Jud.  I,  he  says :  The  boy  was  sent  to 
Jericho,  and  there,  agreeably  to  command,  being  IMMERSED 
in  a  pond  (j3a,7TTi$ouevoc  iv  tcoXvpftridpa),  he  perished. 
Bell.  Jud.  LI,  As  they  [the  sailors]  swam  away  from  a 


56  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

SINKING  ship  (panT^ofievnc  veuc).  Bell.  Jud.  Ill,  The 
wave  being  raised  very  high,  OVERWHELMED  or  IM- 
MERGED  them  (eftdnTLoe.) 

It  were  easy  to  enlarge  this  list  of  testimonies  to 
usage;  but  the  reader  will  not  desire  it.  He  may 
see  many  examples  in  Carson's  recent  publication  on 
baptism ;  which  I  did  not  see,  until  after  the  present 
dissertation  was  written.  It  is  impossible  to  doubt 
that  the  words  fld-nTto  and  Panri^cj  have,  in  the  Greek 
classical  writers,  the  sense  of  dip,  plunge,  immerge,  sink, 
etc.  But  there  are  variations  from  this  usual  and  pre- 
vailing signification;  i.e.,  shades  of  meaning  kindred  to 
this  (as  happens  in  respect  to  most  words),  some  literal 
and  some  figurative,  which  demand,  of  course,  our  spe- 
cial notice. 

2.  The  verb  pdnro  means  to  plunge  or  thrust  into 
any  thing  that  is  solid,  but  permeable ;  to  plunge  in  so 
as  to  cover  or  inclose  the  thing  plunged. 

Some  place  here  the  example  in  Sophocles,  Ajax 
v.  95,  rendering  it :  Thou  hast  plunged  deep  (Zfiaxpac 
ev)  thy  sword  INTO  the  Grecian  army;  but  here  irpog 
'Apyeiuv  orpdrc^,  seems  not  to  admit  of  this  construc- 
tion, as  it  means  with,  or  by  means  of,  the  Grecian 
army.     See  under  No.  6,  in  the  sequel. 

Lycophron,  Cassand.  v.  1121,  representing  Orestes 
as  about  to  punish  Clytcmnestra  for  murder,  says : 
The  child  .  .  .  shall  with  his  own  hand  PLUNGE  (/3dipei) 
his  sword  into  the  viper's  boivels. 

Philippus,  in  Jacobs'  Anthol.,  says:  lie  thrust 
(e(3aipe)  his  ivholc  chin  into  the  belly  of  the  ram. 

Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  Ant.  Bom.  V.  15,  says : 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  57 

The  one  thrust  (/3ai/>ac)  Ms  spear  between  the  other's 
ribs,  who  at  the  same  instant  [thrust  his]  into  his  belly. 

Euripides,  Phoeniss.  1593,  Taking  his  sounding 
scimitar  from  the  dead,  he  PLUNGED  it  (t/3aipe)  into  the 
flesh. 

So  far  as  I  have  observed,  the  verb  Pair™  is  exclu- 
sively employed  in  all  such  cases. 

3.  The  verb  pd-xTO)  only  is  employed,  in  order  to 
convey  the  meaning,  to  dip  out,  to  dip  up,  by  plunging 
a  vessel  into  a  liquid  and  drawing  it  up. 

Euripides,  Hec.  607  sq.  But  go,  you  old  maidservant, 
take  a  vessel,  [and]  DIPPING  it  (pdipaaa),  bring  some  sea- 
water  hither.  On  this  the  scholiast  remarks,  that 
(3dirT£iv  means  to  let  down  into  the  water  or  any  liquid. 

Theocritus,  Idyll.  V.  126.  Every  morning,  instead  of 
water,  the  maid  shall  DIP  OUT  (Paipai)  a  cup  of  honey. 
Idyll.  XIII.  46,  The  lad  directed  his  large  pitcher  towards 
the  water,  hastening  to  DIP  it  (fidapai). 

Hermolaus,  lie  DIPPED  (efiaxjje)  his  pitcher  in  the 
ivater  ;  cited  in  Gale's  Refl.  on  Wall,  p.  121. 

Lycophron,  Cassand.  1365,  DIPPING  up  (/Sd^avreg) 
pleasure  with  foreign  buckets. 

Aristotle,  Quosst.  Mechan.  c.  27,  One  must  DIP 
((3dipai),  viz.,  the  bucket,  and  then  draw  it  up. 

Euripides,  Hippol.  123,  Bubbling  ivater  dipped  up 
(fidijjav)  with  pitchers. 

Callimachus,  Hymn,  in  Lavacr.  Pallad.  45 :  To  day, 
ye  bearers  of  water,  DIP  UP  NONE  (p)  ^dnrere),  viz.,  dip 
up  none  from  the  river  Inachus  ;  as  the  context  shows. 

Nicander,  as  quoted  by  Spanheim  in  his  note  on  the 
above  passage,  says :    avrnv  aXa  ftdnre,  DRAW  UP  the 


58  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

sea-water  itself.  On  this  the  scholiast  remarks,  that 
/3tt7rre  stands  for  dvrXel,  y£[u%e,  draw  up,  fill. 

4.  The  verb  .Sarrrw  only  (and  its  derivatives  in  point 
of  form),  signifies  to  tinge,  dye,  or  colour. 

Thus  in  the  Batrachom.  of  Homer,  v.  218,  speaking 
of  one  of  the  champions  which  was  slain,  the  poet  says : 
He  fell,  without  even  looking  upwards,  and  the  lake  WAS 
TINGED  (efidTTTETo)  with  blood. 

Aristophanes,  Plut.  Act.  II.  Sc.  5,  Do  not  adorn 
yourself  with  garments  of  variegated  appearance,  COL- 
OURED (fianTuiv  adj.)  at  a  great  expense. — In  Aves,  p. 
526,  the  poet  speaks  of  vpvig  pan-dc,  a  COLOURED  bird. 
In  Acharn.'Act.  I.  Sc.  1,  he  makes  one  of  his  bullies 
say:  Lest  /tinge  you  with  a  Sardinian  hue,  oe  f3dipG) 
fid\±\ia  lapdiviaaov,  i.  e.,  beat  you  until  you  are  all  be- 
smeared with  blood ;  in  other  words,  until  you  become 
of  a  red  colour. 

Aristotle,  De  Color,  c.  4.  ad  fin.:  The  colour  of  things 
DYED  (t&v  (Sanrojievcjv)  is  changed  by  the  aforesaid 
causes. 

Lucian,  I.  p.  89,  He  teas  present  at  the  exhibition,  hav- 
ing on  a  garment  COLOURED  {(Barrrov) ;  in  opposition  to 
the  usual  custom  of  the  Athenians,  who  wore  white 
garments  on  the  occasion  here  alluded  to. 

Herodotus,  Lib.  VII.  67,  The  Sarangae  adorn  them- 
selves with  garments  that  are  COLOURED  (@£fiau}.itva). 

Plutarch,  VI.  p.  680,  Then  p>erceiving  that  his  beard 
ivas  COLOURED  (Sa-Tofievov),  and  his  haul. 

Diodorus  Siculus,  Tom.  III.  p.  315,  They  [the 
Gauls]  wear  singular  garments,  coats  DYED  (fiaTCTolg), 
and /lowered  with  various  colours,  etc.     Tom.  II.  p.  149, 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  59 

The  p>hysiologists,  reasoning  from  these  things,  show,  that 
native  warmth  has  TINGED  (t-jSatpev)  the  above  variety  of 
the  growth  of  the  things  before  mentioned;  he  refers  to  the 
variety  of  colours  in  various  precious  stones,  birds,  etc. 

Marcus  Antoninus,  Lib.  V.  §  16,  For  the  soul  is 
TINCTURED  (/3a7r-£rat)  by  the  thought;  TINGE  it  (fidTtre), 
then,  by  accustoming  yourself  to  such  thoughts,  etc. 

Plato,  De  Eepub.  IV.  p.  637,  The  dyers  (oi  (3a<pe7g), 
when  they  are  desirous  TO  DYE  (fidipai)  ivool,  so  as  to 
make  it  purple  . . .  and  whatever  may  be  DYED  ((3a(()y)  in 
this  manner,  the  thing  DYED  (to  fiafyev)  becomes  strongly 
tinctured, — If  any  one  DYE  (fiaTTTy)  other  colours,  etc. — 
That  they  may  receive  Hie  laws  in  the  best  manner,  as  a 
DYE  (/3a0?/v),  that  tJieir  opinion  may  be  durable  . . .  And 
those  streams  cannot  ivash  out  THE  DYE  (ficKpTjv),  al- 
though they  are  very  efficient  to  wash  out,  etc. 

Helladius,  in  Jacob's  Anthol.  III.  p.  145, 
Bdnrcjv  ndvra,  j3a<p£v,  teal  ^pu^arcoig  [xera/Sd^Xov, 
K<u  7Tevi7]v  fidxpae,  ttXovococ  i^eepdvne. 
Dyer,  ivho  tingest  all  things,  and  dost  change  them  by 
thy  colours,  thou  hast  TINGED  poverty  also,  and  now  ap- 
pearest  to  be  rich.     The  epigram  was  made  upon  a  dyer, 
who,  although  once  poor,  had  become  rich.     The  con- 
ceit of  the  poet  is  singular  enough ;  but  the  manner  in 
which  (3dTTTu>  and  its  kindred  forms  are  used,  cannot 
be  mistaken. 

Josephus,  Ant.  III.  6.  1,  Some  DYED  ((3ef3afif.itvac) 
with  hyacinth,  and  some  with  purple. 

No  doubt,  then,  can  remain  that  the  word  [3aTrro) 
means  to  tinge,  or  colour  ;  and  in  this  respect  it  seems 
plainly  to  differ  from  /Sa-rrrt^w.     I  find  no  instance  in 


60  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

which  the  latter  is  employed  in  this  way.  There  may 
be  some,  which  have  escaped  the  extensive  search  that 
I  have  made.  But  until  I  see  them  produced,  I  must 
believe  that  the  sense  of  tinging  is  appropriated  only 
to  (3dnTG),  and  to  its  kindred  words  in  respect  to  form. 
I  am  aware  that  Passow  assigns  to  ^aTrriorng  the 
meaning  of  baptizer,  plunger,  and  dyer  ;  but  of  the  last 
meaning  I  must  now  doubt,  until  some  examples  are 
produced.  All  other  words  kindred  to  ^a-nriornc 
(kindred  in  form,  as  coming  from  {3<nrTi%a))  are  desti- 
tute of  such  a  sense  as  that  of  dyeing  or  colouring, 
according  to  Passow's  own  statement.  * 

If  the  conclusion  just  stated  be  correct,  then  we  can 
see  that  there  exists  the  like  difference  between  the 
actual  usage  of  P&tttu  and  fSairri^cj,  as  exists  between 
many  other  verbs  which  have  the  same  relation  in 
respect  to  form,  and  where  the  ending  in  -£w  has  not 
the  sense  of  a  frequentative.  The  reader  by  looking 
back  to  the  statement  made  above  (p.  294  sq.)  in  rela- 
tion to  this  subject,  may  now  satisfy  himself  still  fur- 
ther, that  pairTi^G)  is  not  a  frequentative.  I  have  found 
no  instance  in  which  this  sense  is  apparent,  so  far  as 
the  nature  of  the  verb  itself  is  concerned. 

5.  The  word  fianri^cj  means  to  overwhelm,  literally 
and  figuratively,  in  a  variety  of  ways. 

Aristotle,  De  Mirabil.  Ausc.  speaks  of  a  saying 
among  the  Phenicians,  that  there  were  certain  places, 
beyond  the  pillars  of  Hercules,  which,  when  it  is  ebb- 
tide, are  not  OVERFLOWED  (u?)  (3aKri^ea&ai),  but  at  full- 
tide  are  overflowed  (tiaraiiXv^eadai);  which  word  is  here 
used  as  an  equivalent  for  (3qnTi%eo&ai. 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  61 

Evenus,  XV.  in  Jacobs'  Anthol.  I.  p.  99,  says :  If 
[Bacchus]  breathe  strongly,  it  hinders  love,  i.  e.,  if  a  man 
becomes  thoroughly  intoxicated,  it  hinders  the  gratifi- 
cation of  amorous  passions;  for  he  [Bacchus]  over- 
whelms (jSaTTTL^ei)  with  a  sleep  near  to  death.  Here  is 
the  metaphorical  sense  of  the  word.  And  so  in  most 
of  the  following  examples. 

Heliodorus,  iEthiop.  Lib.  IV.  p.  192,  When  midnight 
has  overwhelmed  (el3dTT~i%ov)  the  city  with  sleep.  Lib.  LT. 
3,  OVERWHELMED  (fiefianTLonEVov)  by  misfortune.  See 
also  IV.  20.  V.  16. 

Clemens,  Alex.  Pa^d.  II.  p.  182,  By  intoxication 
OVERWHELMED  (/3a7Tr^ofievoc)  unto  sleep. 

Plato,  Conviv.  p.  176,  I  myself  am  one  of  those  who 
were  DRENCHED  or  OVERWHELMED  (/3e/3a77TicrJwevwv) 
yesterday,  viz.,  with  wine.  In  another  place :  Having 
OVERWHELMED  (fiarr-ioaGa)  Alexander  with  much  wine. 
Euthydem.  p.  277,  eel.  Heindorf,  A  youth  over- 
whelmed ((3a7rn^6[.ievov),  viz.,  with  questions. 

Lucian,  Tom.  III.  p.  81,  He  is  like  one  dizzy  and 
OVERWHELMED  ((BefianTiouevGi),  viz.,  with  wine ;  used 
like  our  vulgar  word  fuddled. 

Josephus,  Ant.  X.  9.  4 :  Seeing  him  in  this  condition 
and  OVERWHELMED,  ((3e(3aiTT(,ou£vov)  by  excessive  drink- 
ing into  shamelessness  and  sleep. 

Philo  Judaeus,  "Vol.  II.  p.  478,  I  know  some,  who, 
when  they  easily  become  intoxicated,  before  they  are  entirely 
OVERWHELMED  (jrplv  reXeug  (3a7TTLO&rjvai),  viz.,  with 
wine. 

Diodorus  Siculus,  Tom.  I.  p.  107,  Host  of  the  land 
animals  that  are  intercepted  by  the  river  [Nile]  perish, 


62  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

being  overwhelmed  ^airtitfi^m) ;  here  used  in  the 
literal  sense.  Tom.  VII.  p.  191,  The  river,  home  along 
by  a  more  violent  current,  OVERWHELMED  (Ifidnrioe) 
many  ; — the  literal  signification.  Torn.  I.  p.  129,  And 
because  they  [the  nobles]  have  a  supply  by  these  means 
[presents],  they  do  not  overwhelm  their  subjects  with 
taxes.     Figurative. 

Justin  Martyr,  Dialog,  cum  Tryphone,  p.  313: 
fiefia-nTionivoc  ajxapriaig,  OVERWHELMED  with  sins. 

Plutarch,  Tom.  VI.  p.  30,  The  soul  is  nourished  by 
moderate  labours,  but  is  OVERWHELMED  (foa-nri^erai)  by 
excessive  ones.  In  his  Moralia,  Tom.  III.  p.  1504,  he 
speaks  of  Galba  as  bfyXryiaoi  fiefianTioiievov,  OVER- 
WHELMED with  debts.  In  Opp.  VIII.  p.  345,  he  says : 
virb  rtiv  rrpayndruiv  (3aTrTi^ojj,evovg,  OVERWHELMED  with 
business. 

Chrysostom,  as  quoted  by  Suicer,  Thes.  Ecc.  I.  p. 
623,'Ttto  fitting  (3<nmo&ijvai,  to  be  OVERWHELMED  with 
ivine; — OVERWHELMED  (fiaTTri^ouevog)  with  innumera- 
ble cares; — having  the  mind  OVERWHELMED  ((3e(3aiTTi- 
ofiivov)  with  a  multitude  of  cares  ;  OVERWHELMED  (/3a7r- 
TL^ofiEvoL)  on  all  sides  by  the  many  waves  of  business  / — 
IMMERGED  (PefianTiofievog)  in  malignity. — Justin  Mar- 
tyr:  OVERWHELMED  (ftanTur&eig)  by  drunkenness. 

It  were  easy  to  increase  the  number  of  examples ;  but 
these  are  enough  to  exhibit  both  the  literal  and  meta- 
phorical sense  of  the  word.  The  reader  will  observe, 
that  in  all  these  examples,  the  word  panTi^G)  (and  not 
fidnTG))  is  employed ;  which,  with  the  usage  in  Nos.  2, 
3,  4,  is  a  conclusive  argument  against  supposing  that 
these  two  words  are  in  all  respects  synonymous.  Usage, 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  63 

as  it  plainly  appears  from  all  these  examples,  employs 
(3a,7TTG)  exclusively  in  some  shades  of  meaning ;  (ia-nri^oi 
in  others ;  and  both  in  designating  the  original  and 
generic  idea  of  the  root  BAIT,  as  exhibited  in  ISo.  1. 

6.  Bairrw  is  also  employed  in  the  sense  to  smear,  to- 
bathe,  by  the  application  of  liquid  to  the  surface,  etc. 

Sophocles,  Ajax,  v.  95,  efiaipag  ev,  thou  hast  well 
BATHED  or  SMEARED  thy  sword,  with  the  Grecian  army, 
viz.,  by  plunging  it  into  the  Grecian  soldiers.  The 
construction  -rrpbg  Apyeiuv  orparu  does  not  seem  very 
well  to  admit  of  any  other  sense,  inasmuch  as  the 
object  into  which  any  thing  is  plunged,  is  usually  put 
by  classic  writers,  in  the  Ace.  with  elg,  after  the  verb 
(3a7T-G).  Tipog,  as  above,  signifies  by  means  of,  with,  as 
designating  the  manner  in  which  the  sword  was  bathed. 

.^Eschyrus,  Prometh.  v.  861,  For  the  wife  has  de- 
prived each  husband  of  life,  BATHING  ((3&ipoaoa)  the 
sword  by  slaughter  ;  where  bathing  the  sword  means,  to 
make  it  reek  with  blood,  by  plunging  it  into  human 
bodies. 

Aristophanes,  '  Innelg,  Act.  I.  Sc.  3,  speaking  of 
Magnes,  an  old  comic  player  of  Athens,  represents  him 
as  Avdit%(x>v,  nal  ipnvi^ojv,  teal  PanTOfievog  ^arpax^iotg, 
using  the  Lydian  music  or  measure,  and  making  plays, 
and  SMEARING  himself  with  frog-coloured  [paints], 

Bionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  Yit.  Homeri,  p.  297, 
cited  by  Gale,  p.  123,  comments  on  the  expression  of 
Homer  in  II.  XYI.  333,  where  the  poet  represents 
Ajax  as  killing  Cleobulus,  and  says :  He  struck  him 
across  the  neck,  with  his  heavy  sword,  and  the  whole  sword 
became  warm  ivith  blood.    Upon  this  Dionysius  remarks : 


64  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

That  the  sword  was  so  bathed  (/3anTio$evToc)  with 
blood,  that  it  became  heated  by  it.  This  is  capable  of 
being  rendered,  so  dipped  in  blood  ;  and  so  Gale  renders 
it,  p.  123.  But  if  this  shade  of  meaning  was  designed 
to  be  conveyed  by  Dionysius,  would  he  not  have 
written  :  fianTLO&tvroc  ovrug  e  I  c  rb  al^a  rov  %i(povc 
k.  t.  X.  1  However,  I  do  not  consider  the  example  as 
altogether  certain,  but  adduce  it  as  a  probable  one. 

7.  A  shade  of  meaning  kindred  to  the  above,  viz.,  to 
wash,  i.  e.,  to  cleanse  by  the  use  of  water,  is  sometimes 
attached  to  the  word  P&ittu  in  the  classics. 

Aristophanes,  in  Eccles :  First  they  WASH  {fianrovai) 
the  wool  in  warm  water,  according  to  the  old  custom.  The 
lexicographers,  Suidas  and  Phavorinus,  interpret  the 
word  pdnrovac  here,  by  -nXvvovoi,  they  wash,  or  wash 
out ;  and  Stephens  says  (ad  voc.  ttXvvo)),  that  (3aTTT<o  is 
peculiarly  spoken  of  garments,  as  Xovo)  is  of  the  body, 
and  vlttto)  of  the  hands  and  feet. — We  shall  see  in  the 
sequel,  that  this  shade  of  meaning  is  not  unfrequent  in 
the  sacred  writers,  though  seldom,  so  far  as  I  have,  been 
able  to  discover,  to  be  met  with  in  profane  writers. 

These,  I  believe,  are  all  the  various  shades  of  mean- 
ing assigned  in  the  classics  to  pdnro  and  fia-ri^G). 
How  little  ground  there  is  to  represent  j3a7rri^o)  as  a 
frequentative,  the  reader  must  now  see,  and  be  able  to 
judge  for  himself.  lie  will  also  be  able  to  judge  with 
how  little  correctness  Gale  has  asserted  (p.  217),  that 
" (3dTTTG)  and  f3arzTi^cj  are  loodvvaimi,  i.e.,  exactly  the 
same  as  to  their  signification."  Neither  the  one  nor  the 
other  of  the  above  representations  agrees  with  fact.  In 
all  the  derived  or  secondary  meanings  of  both  (3d-rcj 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  65 

and  Pam-ifa,  it  would  seem  plain,  from  the  above  exhi- 
bition of  them,  that  the  Greek  writers  made  a  diverse 
and  distinct  use  of  the  words,  never  confounding  them. 
Why  should  lexicographers  and  critics  not  have  more 
thoroughly  investigated  this,  before  they  made  repre- 
sentations so  little  accordant  with  the  state  of  facts  ? 

I  come  now  to  investigate  the  usage  of  the  sacred 
records.  This  we  can  do  with  much  greater  advantage, 
after  the  extensive  survey  of  classical  usage  which  has 
been  taken  above. 

§  2.    Use  of  pan™  and  (ia-nri^o)  in  the  Septuagint  and 
Apocrypha. 

1.  The  verb  pdn-o)  signifies  to  plunge,  immerse,  dip 
in. 

Lev.  11 :  32,  Every  vessel  [that  is  unclean]  shall  he 
PLUNGED  {[3a<p)joeTai)  into  water  ;  Heb.  tOfttt,  shall  be 
brought  or  introduced.  4:6,  And  the  priest  shall  dip 
(fidipei)  his  finger  into  the  blood;  Heb.  bat).  9:  9,  And 
he  [Aaron]  DIPPED  (efiaipe)  his  finger  into  the  blood ; 
Heb.  5&&.  14 :  6,  And  he  shall  dip  ((3dif)ei)  them  .  .  . 
into  the  blood ;  Heb.  bnt? .  14  :  51,  And  he  shall  dip 
(pctyei)  it  into  the  blood;  Heb.  bit?. 

Num.  19  :  18,  And  the  man  that  is  cleansed  shall  take 
hyssop,  and  DIP  it  (pdipei)  into  the  water  ;  Heb.  b?tt . 

Deut.  33  :  24,  And  he  shall  dip  (pd^ei)  his  foot  in  oil 
(ev  iXaiu,  Heb.  yivss) ;    Heb.  corresponding  to  fidipei, 

Josh.  3  :  15,   The  feet  of  the  priests  .  .  .  were  dipped 


6Q  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

(i/3d(pr]aav)    into  a  pari   of  the   water   of  the  Jordan  ; 
Heb.  !at>. 

Kuth  2 :  14,  And  thou  shalt  DIP  (J3dipeic)  thy  morsel 
in  vinegar  (£v  r<3  o£«,  ffcjta) ;  Heb.  verb  biti. 

1  Sam.  14:  27,  J.?irf  Ae  dipped  (t/3ai/>e)  #,  viz.,  the 
end  of  his  sceptre,  into  a  Aone?/  comb  ;  Heb.  boa . 

2  Kings  8:  15,  i?e  took  a  mattress,  and  dipped  it 
(tPatpe)  in  water  (ev  t<2  vdar*,  Heb.  fi^li) ;  "verb  bate. 

Job  9 :  31,  TAoii  Aas/  PLUNGED  me  (//e  tj3a^ag)  into 
the  mire  (ev  puny,  rinia5,  wito  ^Ae  pit  or  ditch))  Heb. 
verb  i&to. 

Ps.  67:  23  (68:  24),  That  thy  foot  may  be  dipped 
(j3a0?ji)  m  ttooc?  (iv  al\ian,  6%);  Heb.  verb  fD>?. 

In  like  manner  PaTrrifo  takes  the  same  signification. 

2  Kings  5  :  14,  ./l?zcZ  Naaman  went  down,  and 
PLUNGED  HIMSELF  (k(3a7TTL(jaTo)  seven  times  into  the 
river  Jordan;  Heb.  iatt.  The  prophet  Elisha  had 
said  :  Xovaai  e-nrdKig  h>  ru  '  lopddvy,  WASH  THYSELF 
seven  times  in  the  Jordan,  2  Kings  5:10. 

These  constitute  the  majority  of  the  examples  in 
the  Septuagint,  of  the  words  under  consideration.  The 
others,  which  are  few  in  number,  I  proceed  to  subjoin. 

2.  To  smear  over  or  moisten  by  dipping  in  ;  in  which 
sense  I  find  pdnro)  only  employed. 

Lev.  4:17.  And  the  priest  shall  SMEAR  OVER  or 
MOISTEN  (Pdipa)  his  finger,  and  rod  aqiarog,  by  or  with 
the  blood  of  the  bullock;  Heb.  tnn  ]$•  •  'bsbv  AVhen  then 
the  sense  of  plunging  into  is  directly  and  fully  ex- 
pressed  in  Hebrew,  it  is  by  using  the  preposition  p 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  67 

after  the  verb  baa;  e.  g.  tn?  bat> ,  ti^raa  ias,  etc. 
But  "p  is  sometimes  used  (as  in  the  example  above) 
before  the  noun  designating  the  liquid  element  made 
use  of;  and  then  the  Seventy  have  imitated  this  in 
such  a  way,  that  we  are  constrained  to  render  their 
version  as  I  have  done  above.  The  same  is  the  case  in 
the  next  example. 

Lev.  14  :  16,  And  he  [the  priest]  shall  smear  over 
ifidxpet)  his  rigid  finger  with  the  oil,  and  rov  eXcuov,  Heb. 

Ex.  12  :  22,  And  moistening  or  smearing  it  [the 
bundle  of  hyssop]  with  the  blood  j3dipaavreg  and  rov 
a'ijxaTog).  But  here  the  Hebrew  has  MS  Miiow  and 
the  Seventy,  if  they  had  followed  their  own  analog}^, 
would  have  rendered  it  Qdxpavreg  e  I  grb  al\xa.  Inas- 
much, however,  as  they  have  not  so  done,  it  would 
seem  that  they  meant  to  give  another  shade  of  mean- 
ing to  the  expression. 

3.  To  overwhelm ;  where  (3anri^u)  is  used.  Of  this  I 
find  but  one  example ;  and  in  that  the  word  is  used  in 
a  figurative  way. 

Is.  21 :  4,  My  iniquity  OVERWHELMS  me  (jue  Panri&i)  ; 
where  the  Hebrew  has  Ma  to  terrify,  etc. 

4.  Of  the  sense  of  tinging  or  colouring,  given  to 
/3arrrw,  I  find  only  one  example ;  and  here  the  reading 
is  various  and  contested,  viz. : 

Ezek.  23  :  15,  where  the  Septuagint  reads  napd(3an-a, 
according  to  the  Roman  edition ;  but  other  editions 
read  -idpai  (3anrai,  coloured  turbans.  Ylapafianra  means 
tinctured,  coloured,  variegated  with  colours.  The  Hebrew 
is  Q^aa  wn  redundantes   milris,    with    turbans   or 


68  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

tiaras  redundant,  i.  e.,  having  ends  hanging  down,  etc. 
The  word  fi^bint?  >  a  derivate  of  bntp  appears  here  to 
point  to  the  sense  of  tinging,  tincturing,  which  into 
(like  the  Greek  fidix™)  seems  once  to  have  had. 

5.  To  wash,  cleanse  by  water;  where  ftanri^  is  used. 
Thus  "it  is  said  of  Judith,  in  c.  12  :  7,  that  she  went 

out  by  night  into  the  valley  of  Bethulia,  and  WASHED 
herself  {efiaTTTifyro)  in  the  camp,  at  the  fountain  of 
'water. 

In  Sirach  81  :  25,  we  find  the  expression  (s3air- 
rt^ievoc  and  vetcpov,  he  who  is  CLEANSED  from  a  dead 
[carcase]  and  toucheih  it  again,  what  does  he  profit  by 
his  washing  (t<5  hovrpti  avrov)  1  The  phrase  ftaix- 
rLi,6\itvoc  aixo  veicpov  may  be  easily  explained,  by  com- 
paring such  passages  as  are  to  be  found  in  Lev.  11 :  25, 
23,  31,  39,  40.  Num.  19  :  18,  etc.,  by  which  it  ap- 
pears, that  a  person  who  touched  a  dead  body  was 
ceremonially  defiled,  and  must  wash  his  clothes  and 
his  person  in  order  to  become  clean. 

6.  To  moisten,  wet,  bedew  ;  where  j3dnTU)  is  used. 
Thus  in  Dan.  4  :  30,  it  is  said,  that  Nebuchadnezzar 

was  driven  from  among  men,  and  made  to  eat  grass 
like  the  ox,  and  that  his  body  was  moistened,  wet 
(efidtyri)  with  the  dew  of  heaven. 

Dan.  5  :  21,  His  body  teas  moistened  (^Sdcpv)  with 
the  dew  of  heaven.  The  version  of  this  book,  it  will 
be  recollected,  came  from  the  hand  of  Theodotion, 
about  A.  D.  150,  a  Jew  by  religion,  or  at  least  a  Juda- 
izing  Christian.  Commonly  his  version  agrees  with 
the  Septuagint,  and  it  was  highly  prized  by  Origen 
and  the  ancient  Christians  in  general ;  so  much  so, 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  69 

that  Origen  corrected,  the  faults  of  the  Septuagint  by 
it,  and  the  ancient  churches  preferred  it  to  that  of  the 
Seventy,  in  respect  to  the  book  of  Daniel,  and.  received 
it  in  the  Canon. 

These  are  all  the  examples  of  pdnru  or^  fiaTrrifa 
which  can  be  found  in  the  Septuagint  or  Apocrypha,  if 
the  Concordance  of  Tromm  is  to  be  trusted.  From 
these  the  reader  will  easily  see,  that  some  of  the  classi- 
cal meanings  of  these  Avords  are  not  to  be  found  in  the 
books  aforesaid;  while  other  meanings,  viz.,  to  wash,  to 
bedew  or  moisten,  are  more  clearly  and  fully  exhibited. 
The  examples  in  Daniel  from  Theodotion  make  it  plain 
that  the  word  /3dnro)  was  occasionally  used  to  desig- 
nate the  application  of  liquid  or  moisture  to  the  surface 
of  any  thing,  in  any  way  whatever  ;  whether  by  wash- 
ing, or  by  gentle  affusion  as  in  the  case  of  dew.  The 
example  of  Judith  shews  very  clearly,  that  washing  of 
the  person  may  be  designated  by  j3anrL^o) ;  for  into  the 
fountain  in  the  midst  of  the  camp,  it  is  not  probable 
that  she  'plunged.  In  both  the  examples  in  Daniel,  the 
Chaldee  (the  original  is  here  in  this  language)  is  srfl?, 
which,  like  the  Greek  /3a7rrw,  means  both  to  dip  and 
to  tinge  or  colour.  The  like  is  the  case  with  the  same 
verb  in  Syriac  and  Arabic,  as  well  as  in  Chaldee ;  and 
the  Hebrew  appears  also  to  have  employed  the  same 
verb  in  the  like  sense,  inasmuch  as  we  have  yns,  a  deri- 
vate  of  it,  signifying  coloured  garment,  Judg.  5  :  30. 

I  have  taken  an  extensive  range,  in  order  to  prepare 
for  the  investigation  of  the  words  in  question  in  the 
New  Testament.  But  we  may  now  come  to  the  work, 
under  circumstances  that  will  enable  us  to  judge  with 


70  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

a  greater  degree  of  accuracy  and  satisfaction  than  we 
could  possibly  have  done,  if  these  introductory  inves- 
tigations had  been  superseded. 

§  3.  Meaning  of  the  words  /3  a  n-  r  w ,  /3  a  7r  t  t  £  w ,  and  their 
derivatives  in  the  New  Testament,  when  not  applied  to 
the  rite  of  baptism. 

I.     BaTTTW. 

1.  To  dip. 

E.  g.,  Luke  16  :  24,  That  he  may  dip  (pdifyq)  the  lip  of 
his  finger  in  water,  vdaroc,  the  Gen.  of  instrument,  i.  e., 
that  he  may  wet  his  finger  WITH  water,  which  is  a  ren- 
dering that  seems  to  accord  more  exactly  with  the 
syntactical  construction  of  the  sentence. 

John  13  :  26,  It  is  he,  to  whom  I  shall  give  the  morsel 
or  crumb,  when  I  have  DIPPED  it  ((3dipac). 

2.  To  dye. 

E.  g.,  Eev.  19  :  13,  a  garment  DYED  {fieftamievov)  in 
blood. 

These  are  all  the  examples  of  pd-rrru ;  and  by  these 
it  appears  that  in  no  case  is  this  word  applied  to  the 
rite  of  baptism,  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament. 
Nor  are  there  any  words  derived  from  this  form,  which 
occur  in  the  New  Testament. 

We  proceed,  then,  to  consider  the  other  verb. 

II.   Ba-nri^o). 

I  shall  first  ex?  mine  all  the  examples  of  this  word 
and  its  derivatives,  in  cases  which  have  no  relation  to 
the  religious  rite  of  baptism.  After  this  is  done,  we 
may  come  with  more  advantage  to  the  examination  of 
the  meaning,  when  these  words  are  applied  to  this  rite. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  71 

1.  To  ivash,  in  the  literal  sense. 

E.  g.,  Mark  7  :  3,  4,  The  Pharisees  [returning]  from 
the  market  eat  not,  except  they  WASH  THEMSELVES,  (3an- 
riocovrai,  Mid.  voice. 

Luke  11  :  38,  But  the  Pharisee,  seeing  him,  wondered 
that  he  had  not  first  WASHED  HIMSELF  (if3a7TTiod?j)  be- 
fore dinner.  Here  the  1  Aor.  Pass,  is  used  in  the 
same  way  as  the  1  Aor.  Middle  would  be  employed ; 
as  it  is  oftentimes  elsewhere. 

In  accordance  with  this  sense  of  ^a-nri^w,  we  find  the 
word  paTTTionoc-  employed. 

E.  g.,  Mark  7  :  4,  The  washings  (Pairriaiiovc)  of 
cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and  couches  (tc?av&v). 

Mark  7  :  8,  The  washings  (j3aTZTiofjt,ovg)  of  pots  and 
cups. 

Heb.  9  :  10,  Only  in  meats,  and  drinks,  and  divers 
WASHINGS  {fiaiTTiopolc). 

These  are  the  only  examples  in  the  New  Testament 
where  fianri^u)  or  any  of  its  derivates  has  a  literal 
sense,  with  the  exception  of  those  cases  in  which  these 
words  are  applied  to  designate  the  rite  of  baptism. 
Whether  these  are  to  be  literally  understood,  remains 
still  the  object  of  our  inquiry. 

2.  But  fianri^o)  and  pdnriofia  have,  in  a  few  cases,  a 
figurative  sense,  which  deserves  a  particular  considera- 
tion. This  meaning  stands  nearly  allied  to  that  in 
No.  5  under  our  classical  head  in  §  1 ;  or  rather,  it  is, 
in  amount,  an  idiom  of  the  same  nature.  The  exam- 
ples are  the  following : 

Luke  12  :  50,  /  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with 
( fiatx-ioua  6e  e^w  fiaTTrurdrjvai),  and  how  am  I  straitened 


72  .   CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

until  it  be  accomplished!  That  is,  I  am  about  to  be 
overwhelmed  with  sufferings,  and  I  am  greatly  dis- 
tressed with  the  prospect  of  them.  A  comparison  with 
the  similar  classical  usage,  under  No.  5  just  mentioned, 
makes  this  sense  very  plain. 

Mark  10  :  38,  39,  Are  ye  able  to  drink  of  the  cup  that 
I  must  drinlc,  and  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  with 
which  I  am  baptized  ?  ml  rb  fidnTiofia,  6  eyw  /Sarrri^ofiai, 
/3aTTTio$Tjvai ;  which  words  are  found  also  in  Matt. 
20  :  22,  23,  of  the  common  editions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  are  there  marked  as  spurious  by  Knapp. 
The  genuineness  of  them  in  Mark,  however,  stands 
uncontroverted.  The  sense  is  evidently  the  same  as 
that  given  above,  viz.  "  Can  ye  indeed  take  upon  you 
to  undergo,  patiently  and  submissively,  sufferings  like 
to  mine — sufferings  of  an  overwhelming  and  dreadful 
nature  ?" 

So  the  classic  usage:  "  To  overwhelm  with  misfor- 
tune ;  to  overwhelm  with  taxes — with  wine — with 
questions — with  debt — with  excessive  labour,"  etc.  etc. 
In  the  like  sense  I  must  understand  the  word  in  1  Cor. 
15  :  29,  Else  what  shall  they  do,  who  are  baptized  for 
the  dead  ?  ol  f3a7rTi$6fievoi  vvep  rwv  veKptiv  ;  That  is  (for 
so  the  course  of  the  apostle's  reasoning  leads  us  to  un- 
derstand him),  "  If  the  dead  are  not  raised — if  there  be, 
as  some  affirm,  no  resurrection  to  life,  then  what  be- 
comes of  all  our  multiplied  toils  and  sufferings,  which 
we  undergo  with  reference  to  a  future  state  and  to  that 
world  unto  which  the  dead  go  ?  Of  what  avail  is  it 
to  endure  overwhelming  sorrows,  if  there  be  no  resur- 
rection of  the  dead?" 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  73 

Sucli  a  sense  of  the  word  0a7rr«£<u  is  so  well  sup- 
ported and  illustrated  by  classic  usage,  that  nothing 
further  needs  to  be  said  upon  it.  I  will  only  add,  that 
G.  J.  Yossius,  in  his  Disputationes  de  Baptismo,  Thes. 
L,  attributes  such  a  usage  of  the  word  to  the  custom  of 
the  Hebrews  in  designating  great  calamities  by  the 
image  of  overwhelming  waters.  Had  he  examined  the 
classic  usage  of  the  word,  he  would  have  seen  no  need 
of  this  solution.  To  Hebrews  and  Greeks  both,  the 
idea  of  an  overivhehning  flood  offered  a  very  obvious 
image  to  designate  great  sorrows  and  afflictions.  Both, 
therefore,  employ  it.  Thus  David :  "  Save  me,  O 
God,  for  the  waters  are  come  into  my  soul !  I  sink 
in  deep  mire,  where  there  is  no  standing ;  I  am  come 
into  deep  waters,  where  the  floods  overflow  me;"  Ps. 
69  :  1.  Again,  Ps.  69  :  14,  "  Let  me  be  delivered  .  .  . 
out  of  the  deep,  waters."  Ps.  18  :  16,  "  He  sent  from 
above,  he  took  me,  he  drew  me  out  of  many  waters." 
Ps.  32  :  6,  "  Surely  in  the  floods  of  great  waters,  they 
shall  not  come  nigh  to  him."  Ps.  42  :  7,  "  Deep  call- 
eth  unto  deep,  at  the  noise  of  thy  water-spouts  ;  all  thy 
waves  come  over  my  soul."  Inasmuch,  now,  as  the 
more  usual  idea  of  PaTrri^o)  is  that  of  overwhelming,  inn- 
merging,  it  was  very  natural  to  employ  it  in  designating 
severe  calamities  and  sufferings. 

3.  There  is  another  figurative  use  of  j3aTrri^co,  allied 
in  some  respects  to  the  preceding  one,  but  distinguished 
from  it  in  the  mode  of  its  application.  I  mean  that 
usage  of  the  word  which  employs  it  to  designate  the 
idea  of  copious  affusion  or  effusion,  in  a  figurative  man- 
ner. The  basis  of  this  usage  is  very  plainly  to  be 
4 


74  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

found  in  the  designation  by  (iaixri^  of  the  idea  of 
overwhelming,  i.  e.;  of  surrounding  on  all  sides  with 
fluid.  Copious  affusion  or  effusion  is  kindred  to  this ; 
and  very  obviously,  the  word  which  designates  the 
preceding  idea  may  also  designate  these  meanings. 

E.  g.,  Matt.  3  :  11,  He  shall  BAPTIZE  (panrioei)  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire  ;  i.  e.,  he  will  make  a  copious 
effusion  of  his  Spirit  upon  a  part  of  you ;  and  another 
part,  viz.,  the  finally  unbelieving  and  impenitent,  he 
will  surround  with  flames,  or  plunge  into  the  flames. 
Or  perhaps  baptizing  with  fire  may  here  have  reference 
to  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
when  there  appeared  to  the  apostles,  "  cloven  tongues 
as  it  were  of  fire,  and  it  [the  fire]  rested  upon  every 
one  of  them,"  Acts  2  :  3.  In  Luke  3  :  16,  the  same 
expression  is  again  found;  and  in  Mark  1  :  8,  John 
1 :  33,  and  Acts  1:5;  11 :  17,  is  found  the  phrase,  He 
shall  BAPTIZE  (Panrioei,  (3aTTri^o)v)  you  with  the  Holy 
/Spirit.  In  1  Cor.  12  :  13,  Paul  says :  For  by  one  Spirit 
have  we  been  BAPTIZED  (efiaTTTio'&rjfxev)  into  one  body  ; 
i.  e.,  by  the  copious  effusion  of  one  and  the  same  Spirit, 
have  we  been  made  members  of  one  and  the  same 
church.  So  he  afterwards  explains  it :  "  We  all  have 
been  made  to  drink  in  one  and  the  same  Spirit." 

I  have  now  examined  all  the  examples  in  the  New 
Testament,  in  which  Pairri^G)  and  its  derivates  have 
a  literal  or  figurative  sense,  and  arc  not  applied  to  des- 
ignate the  right  of  baptism.  We  come,  then,  at  last, 
after  thus  opening  the  way,  to  the  consideration  of  the 
main  question. 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  75 

§  4.  Do  PanTi^o)  and  its  derivates,  when  applied  to  des- 
ignate the  rite  OF  baptism,  necessarily  imply  that  this 
rite  was  performed  by  IMMERSION  of  the  whole  person  ? 

There  are  different  ways  in  which,  light  may  be  cast 
npon  the  ground  of  this  inquiry. 

I.  AYe  may  contemplate  the  proper  force  and  signi- 
fication of  the  word  itself,  as  determined  by  the  usus 
loquendi  in  general. 

II.  We  may  examine  the  circumstances  which  at- 
tended the  administration  of  this  rite,  and  see  whether 
they  cast  any  light  upon  the  manner  of  the  rite  itself. 

III.  We  may  investigate  the  early  history  of  the 
rite,  and.  see  whether  it  already  existed  in  the  Jewish 
church,  at  the  time  when  John  the  Baptist  made  his 
appearance ;  and  if  so,  what  was  the  manner  of  it 
among  the  Jews,  and  whether  John  or  Jesus  made  any 
change  in  this  manner. 

IV.  We  may  investigate  the  subsequent  history  of 
the  rite,  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Christian  church,  and 
see  what  mode  "of  baptizing  Avas  practised  by  the 
churches  in  general. 

V.  When  all  this  is  done,  and  the  mode  is  philologi- 
cally  and  historically  exhibited  or  established,  we  may 
then  make  the  inquiry,  whether  any  particular  mode 
of  applying  Vater  in  baptism  is  essential  to  the  ordi- 
nance, and  obligatory  upon  the  churches  of  Christ  at 
the  present  day. 


76  CHKISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

§5.   General  usus  loquendi  of  fiairrifa. 

1.  What  is  the  proper  force  and  signification  of  the 
word,  according  to  the  general  usus  loquendi? 

A  review  of  the  preceding  examples  must  lead  any 
one,  I  think,  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  predominant 
usage  of  the  words  pdnra)  and  fiaTrrifa  is  to  designate 
the  idea  of  dipping,  plunging,  and  overwhelming,  and 
(in  the  case  of  f3dnT(S)  of  tinging  or  dyeing.  But  we 
have  already  seen,  in  Nos.  6,  7  above,  respecting  classic 
usage,  that  (3dnro)  is  employed  in  the  sense  of  bathing 
the  surface  of  any  thing  with  a  fluid,  and  also  of  wash- 
ing it.  We  have  also  seen,  in  Nos.  2,  5,  6  of  exam- 
ples from  the  Septuagint  and  Apocrypha,  that  the  word 
f3a7TTi$G)  sometimes  means  to  ivash ;  and  fid-rrTO)  to 
moisten,  to  wet  or  bedew.  There  is,  then,  no  absolute 
certainty  from  usage,  that  the  word  /3a-TTt<w,  when  ap- 
plied to  designate  the  rite  of  baptism,  means  of  course 
to  immerge  or  plunge.  It  may  mean  masking  ;  possibly 
(but  not  probably)  it  may  mean  copiously  moistening  or 
bedewing ;  because  words  coming  from  the  common 
root  BAIT,  are  applied  in  both  these  senses,  as  we  have 
seen  above. 

But  there  is  another  point  of  philology  yet  to  be  ex- 
amined. This  relates  to  the  mode  in  which  the  New 
Testament  writers  employ  the  words  that  designate  the 
element  with  which  one  is  baptized.  This  deserves  a 
serious  consideration  ;  and,  so  far  as  I  knew,  it  has  not 
yet  been  duly  examined. 

The  Greek   classic  writers   are  accustomed,  when 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  77 

they  designate  the  idea  of  plunging,  dipping,  immerg- 
ing,  etc.,  into  any  thing,  to  put  the  name  of  that  thing 
in  the  Accusative  case  after  i3dnro)  and  (3anriL,o),  and 
to  put  before  this  case  the  preposition  elg,  or  some 
equivalent  one.     The  following  are  examples. 

Lycophron,  Cassand.  v.  1121,  elg  a-nXdyxva .  .  .ftdipet 
|t'0oc.  The  scholiast  on  Eurip.  Hec.  609,  says :  j3dnTeiv, 
iart  to  %aXav  rt  elg  vdo)p,  ■})  elg  erepov  tl  vyrrov.  Aris- 
toph.  Nub.  Act.  I.  Sc.  2,  evefiaipev  elg  tov  nvpov.  Aristot. 
De  Anim.  III.  12,  el  elg  fcvpbv  /3dipete  rig.  Hist.  Ani- 
mal. VIII.  2,  edv  /3dTTT(oo~Lv  elg  ipvxpov.  Ibid.  VIII.  26 
etc  peXi  pdnrovTeg.  De  Kepub.  VII.  17,  elg  iroTafibv 
dT:ofid~-Eiv.  Herodot.  Melpom.  p.  154,  e-rreira  drco(id- 
ipavreg  eg  (elg)  rijv  kvXikol.  Dionys.  Hal.  Ant.  Horn.  V, 
elg  rag  nXevpag  pdijjag.  Plutarch.  Parall.  Graec.  Eom. 
p.  545,  elg  to  al\xa  rr\v  x^?a  Pairricag.  Marcus  Anton. 
Lib.  III.  §  4,  j3fij3a[.inevov  elg  j3d&og,  etc.,  etc. 

It  were  easy  to  multiply  examples.  But  no  possible 
doubt  can  arise,  that  such  is  common  usage  in  classic 
Greek.  But  a  review  of  the  instances  in  which  fia-nTifa 
is  employed  in  the  New  Testament,  presents  a  con- 
struction in  general  quite  different  from  this.  The  re- 
sult of  such  a  review  is,  that  after  a  particular  exami- 
nation of  all  the  cases  which  refer  either  to  the  baptism 
of  John  or  of  Jesus  and  his  disciples,  I  find  but  a  sin- 
gle instance  of  the  construction  which  is  so  general  in 
the  classics,  whenever  the  element  made  use  of  in  or- 
der to  perform  the  rite  of  baptism  is  named.  This  is 
the  following : 

Mark  1:9,'  Irjaovg  . . .  e[3a7TTia-&r]  v^b  '  Icodvvov  elg  tov 
'  lopddvnv,  Jesus  .  .  .  was  baptized  by  John  into  or  IN 


78  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

the  Jordan ;  following  the  usual  method  of  the  clas- 
sics. 

The  other  cases  where  the  element  is  named,  are  of 
two  kinds. 

1.  With  the  Dative  and  the  preposition  ev;  e.  g., 
Matt.  3  :  11,  /  baptize  you  ev  vdan,  WITH  water  or  BY 
water.    Mark  1 :  8,  the  same  ;  and  so  John  1 :  26, 31,  33. 

2.  With  the  Dative  merely  ;  e.  g.,  Luke  3  :  16, 1  bap- 
tize you  vdan,  with  water  or  by  water  ;  and  so  in  Acts 
1:5;  11  :  16  ;  the  idiom  being  peculiar  to  Luke. 

The  question  very  naturally  occurs,  then,  Is  there 
any  special  significance  to  be  attached  to  these  modes 
of  expression  by  the  writers  of  the^New  Testament  ? 
Did  they  intend  to  avoid  a  description  of  the  manner  of 
the  rite,  by  forms  of  expression  which  designate  merely 
the  means,  without  marking  the  manner  ?  What  they 
have  done,  as  to  modes  of  expression,  is  matter  of  fact, 
and  therefore  certain.  What  significancy,  or  whether 
any,  is  to  be  attached  to  these  modes,  is  a  question  in- 
timately connected  with  the  object  of  our  inquiry. 

My  first  view  of  their  manner,  compared  with  the 
usual  method  of  expression  in  the  classics,  inclined  me 
to  the  supposition,  that  there  was  some  special  design 
in  their  employing  the  kind  of  phraseology  which  they 
have  made  use  of.  I  am  not  confident  now,  that  such 
is  not  the  case  ;  yet  a  review  of  the  whole  state  of  the 
case  may,  perhaps,  lead  to  doubt,  whether  we  ought  to 
adopt  such  an  opinion  in  respect  to  their  usage. 

1.  We  have  one  example  apparently  of  the  usual 
classical  mode  of  expression,  as  above  quoted,  viz. : 

Mark  1  :  9,  eiSanriadi] . . .  elg  rov  '  lopddvnv.     Elg  is  in- 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  79 

deed  found  before  the  Accusative,  and  this  not  unfre- 
quently,  where  it  is  employed  in  the  like  sense  with  ev 
before  the  Dative,  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  e.  g.,  Matt.  2  :  23,  He  dwelt  elg  -noXiv  'Na^aper, 
AT  or  IN  the  village  Nazareth :  John  21  :  4,  He  stood  elg 
rbv  alyiaXov,  ON"  the  shore  or  BY  it;  Acts  8  :  40,  Philip 
was  found  elg  "A£wtov,  AT  Azotus.  So  in  the  Septuagint, 
Esth.  1  :  5,  The  heathen  who  are  found  elg  rrjv  noXiv,  AT 
or  nsr  Hie  city.  In  accordance  with  such  examples  of 
elg  before  a  name  of  place,  one  might  say  that  in  Mark 
1  :  9,  elg  rbv  '  lopd&vqv  means,  AT  the  river  Jordan.  So 
Bretschneider  construes  ev  ™  '  lopddvco,  Matt.  3  :  6,  in 
his  Lexicon,  under  PaTrri^o).  This  is  clearly  a  possible 
construction  ;  but  whether  it  is  here  the  most  probable 
one,  I  entertain  some  doubts  ;  because  the  Jordan  natu- 
rally designates  the  element  by  which  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism is  performed. 

That  elg  rbv  '  lopd&vnv,  however,  may  designate  no 
more  in  Mark  1  :  9,  than  the  element  ivith  ivhich  or  by 
zvhich  John  performed  the  rite  of  baptism,  one  might 
argue  from  such  an  example  as  that  in  John  9  :  7,  where 
Jesus  says  to  the  blind  man,  Go  wash  iisr  the  pool  (viipcu 
elg  KoXvufirjdpav)  of  Siloam.  Now  we  know  that  the 
word  vitttcj  (also  vi$(S)  is  used  almost  exclusively*  for 
the  washing  of  the  face,  hands,  or  feet.  So  here,  the 
blind  man  is  directed  to  wash  his  face  or  his  eyes  at  the 
pool,  or  in  the  pool,  of  Siloam.  To  plunge  or  immerse, 
is  not  necessarily  implied  by  the  word  vinro),  although 
in  some  cases  it  may  clearly  admit  of  this  idea. 

Other  cases,  where  elg  before  the  Accusative  is  em- 
ployed in  a  like  sense  with  ev  before  the  Dative,  spe- 


80  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

cially  in  regard  to  the  place  in  which  any  thing  is  or  is 
done,  the  reader  may  find  by  consulting  Mark  2:1. 
John  1  :  18.  Mark  13  :  16.  Luke  11  :  7.  Acts 
18  :  21.  Mark  13  :  9.  In  like  manner  the  classic  au- 
thors not  unfrequently  employ  elg  before  nouns  sig- 
nificant of  place ;  Winer's  Gramm.  Ed.  3,  p.  350. 
And  in  accordance  with  the  example  in  John  9  :  7, 
cited  above,  we  may  appeal  to  the  expression  of  Alci- 
phron,  III.  43,  \ovaa\ikvov  elg  to  ftaXavelov,  having 
washed  IN  the  bath  or  AT  the  bath. 

With  so  many  examples  before  us,  of  cases  where  elg 
and  ev  are  assimilated  in  usage,  both  in  heathen  and  in 
sacred  writers,  it  must  be  somewhat  doubtful,  whether 
the  solitary  example  of  elg  after  fiaTtTifa  and  before  the 
noun  designating  the  element,  which  is  found  in  Mark 
1 :  9,  can  be  much  relied  on,  in  order  to  sh  w  that  the 
New  Testament  usage  agrees  with  the  usual  classical 
one.  The  only  circumstance  which  weighs  much  in  its 
favour,  so  far  as  the  case  has  yet  been  develo]3ed,  is,  that 
the  noun  which  here  follows  fta-nTifa,  may  very  natu- 
rally designate  the  element  by  which  the  rite  in  ques- 
tion is  performed ;  and  so,  the  usual  classical  construc- 
tion may  more  naturally  be  allowed.  But  this  again 
is  rendered  so  dubious  by  viipcu  elg  T-ijv  icoXvufirj&pav 
and  Xovaa\ievov  elg  to  fiaXavelov,  that  we  can  scarcely 
come  with  safety  and  confidence  to  a  philological  con- 
clusion of  such  a  nature. 

We  are  obliged,  then,  to  cast  about  us,  and  see  if  any 
further  light  can  be  thrown  upon  this  usage  of  the 
noun  (after  the  verb  Pain-ifa),  which  signifies  the  ele- 
ment by  which  the  rite  is  performed.    Have  the  classic 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  81 

writers  used  not  only  the  Accusative  with  etc,  but  also 
the  Dative  with  and  without  kv,  and  other  equivalent 
constructions  ? 

In  answer  to  this  question  I  will  now  produce  sev- 
eral examples,  which  show  that  the  classical  writers 
have  expressed  themselves  in  different  ways,  when  em- 
ploying the  words  (id-nrw  and  Pami^o). 

Aristophanes,  Eccles.  They  dip  the  wool  #£pju<3,  in 
warm  water;  Dative  without  ev.  Aristotle,  Hist.  Anim. 
V  1,1,1,  29,  And  dipping  it  IN  wine  (ev  olviS),  they  drink 
it ;  Dative  with  ev.  Heraclides  Ponticus,  Allegor.  p. 
495,  vdari  Pa-nri^erai.  Aratus,  Phaenom.  v.  650,  pdn- 
tojv  (biteavolo,  baptizing  WITH  the  ocean  ;  Genitive  with- 
out a  preposition,  used  in  the  same  sense  as  the  Dative 
with  ev.  Ibid.  858,  fidir-ot  poov  eonepioto  bathes  himself 
with  the  western  flood,  i.  e.,  the  sea;  Genitive  of  instru- 
ment. Again,  v.  951,  Bathes  herself  TroTa/ioto,  WITH 
the  'river  ;  Genitive  of  instrument.  Strabo,  XVI.  p. 
1117,  Dipped  dioToTe,  in  the  gall  of  serpents ;  Dative 
without  preposition.  Plutarch,  De  Ednc.  Puer.  p.  15, 
role  vTiepfiaXXovoi  l3airriL,erai,  are  overwhelmed  WITH  ex 
cessive  labours  ;  Dative  of  cause.  Marcus  Antoninus 
V.  §  16,  PaTT-erai  imb  rtiv  (fravraoitiv,  Genitive  of  in 
strument,  with  a  preposition.  Plutarch,  Moral.  Tom 
III.  p.  150-1,  d(pXrjiiaai  (3e(3aTT~iofievov,  overwhelmed  WITH 
debts;  Dative  of  cause,  without  a  preposition. 

It  follows,  then,  from  these  examples,  to  which  many 
more  might  easily  be  added  if  necessary,  that  the  verbs 
QdixTo  and  fiaixri^  admit  after  them  several  various 
methods  of  construing  the  noun,  which  designates  the 
element  made  use  of  in  the  action  indicated  by  the 
4* 


82  CHKISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

verb.  (1)  The  Accusative  case  with  elg  before  it ; 
which  is  the  usual  construction.  (2)  The  Dative  with 
ev.  (3)  The  Dative  without  iv.  (4)  The  Genitive 
with  vtto,  etc.  (5)  The  Genitive  without  a  preposition. 
And  probably  it  is  another  variety  still,  which  So- 
phocles exhibits  in  his  Ajax,  v.  96,  where  he  says : 
Thou  hast  well  BATHED  (e(3aifjag)  thy  sword  trpog  '  Apyeiojv 
arpdrco,  WITH  the  army  of  the  Greeks. 

From  such  examples,  which,  indeed,  are  somewhat 
numerous,  we  may  come  very  fairly  to  the  conclusion, 
that  when  a  Greek  employed  the  word  pdnrcj  or  Pan-ifa, 
he  did  not  feel  constrained  to  use  the  Accusative  case 
after  it  with  the  preposition  elg.  He  might  express 
himself  in  various  other  ways,  and  still  conform  to  the 
usus  loqucndi. 

But  are  all  these  modes  of  speaking,  now  exhibited, 
equivalent  to  each  other?  I  think  not.  There  is  a 
difference  which  may  be  made  quite  manifest,  between 
saying  [Saipeve  ixoTa\io  elg  row,  and  efiaipev  iv  t<5  Trorafiti, 
or  f3dn~u)v  t<3  TroTa/iw,  pdnroiv  irorauov,  e/3d<pn  vnb  rov 
irorafiov,  etc.  In  the  first  case,  I  understand  the  writer 
or  speaker  as  meaning  to  designate  the  manner  of  the 
baptism  ;  he  plunged  into  the  river  means,  that  he  im- 
merged  or  submerged  himself,  i.  e.,  that  he  went  down  or 
sunk  beneath  the  surface  of  the  water.  In  all  the 
other  cases,  the  manner  of  the  action  is  no  further 
designated,  than  the  words  pdrrrw  or  fiaTxrti^u  imply  it ; 
but  the  means,  cause  or  instrument  of  baptism  is  desig- 
nated, viz.,  the  river,  or  the  waters  of  the  river. 
"  Ef3d7TTioe  elg  rbv  -noraiiov  cannot  usually  mean  less 
than  that  the  individual  of  whom  this  is  affirmed,  did 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  83 

actually  dive  into  the  water,  or  was  in  some  way  sub- 
merged in  it ;  whereas  all  the  other  methods  of  con- 
struction do  not  of  necessity  imply  any  more,  than 
that  the  individual  concerned  bathed  himself  or  washed 
himself,  with  the  element  named.  This  may  have  been 
by  plunging  into  it,  or  in  any  other  way ;  but  the  ex- 
pression, when  the  Genitive  or  Dative  is  used  after  the 
verb,  either  with  or  without  a  preposition,  does  not 
designate  the  manner  of  the  baptism,  but  only  the  kind 
of  element  by  which  this  baptism  was  effected.  This 
results  from  the  nature  of  the  Genitive  and  Dative 
cases,  and  the  prepositions  with  which  they  are  con- 
nected, in  all  the  constructions  now  in  question.  To 
this  I  make  the  appeal ;  and  those  who  know  enough 
of  the  laws  of  syntax  and  idiom  in  Greek  to  be  quali- 
fied to  judge,  will  be  able  to  determine  for  themselves 
whether  the  distinction  now  made  is  well  founded. 

Believing  that  it  is  so,  I  may  now  bring  to  the  test 
the  cases  of  /3anri^co  in  the  New  Testament^  after  which 
verb  the  element  is  designated.  As  we  have  already 
seen,  all  these  are  either  in  the  Dative  with  or  without 
ev1  one  only  excepted,  which  seems  to  be  construed 
after  the  usual  analogy.  Setting  aside  this,  then,  for  a 
moment,  we  may  say,  in  all  other  cases  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  mode  of  baptism  is  left  undetermined 
by  the  original  Greek,  so  far  as  the  language  itself  is 
concerned,  unless  it  is  necessarily  implied  by  the  word 
fSa-rrri^G) ;  for  in  all  other  cases,  only  the  element  by  which, 
not  the  mode  in  which  baptism  is  performed,  is  desig- 
nated by  the  sacred  writers.   (See  Appendix  A,  Nojc  !•) 

I  take  this  to  be  sufficiently  plain  and  certain,  to,  the. 


84  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

well  -  instructed  philologist ;  and  I  apprehend  it  may 
now  appear  plain  to  others,  from  the  evidence  placed 
before  them.  Is  there,  then,  in  the  word  (3arTri^G) 
itself,  a  meaning  sufficiently  definite  and  exclusive  to 
imply,  of  necessity,  that  the  rite  of  baptism  was  per- 
formed only  by  plunging?  And  does  the  solitary 
example  in  Mark  1:9,  add  confirmation  to  the  suppo- 
sition of  such  a  meaning  ? 

It  will  be  remembered,  that  I  am  now  making  the 
inquiry,  how  much  we  may  justly  conclude  ex  vi  ter- 
mi?ii,  i.  e.,  merely  from  the  force  of  the  words  con- 
cerned, independently  of  any  historical  facts  that  may 
stand  connected  with  them,  and  be  explanatory  of 
them.  For  in  this  case,  as  in  all  others,  more  or  less 
of  modification  may  be  admitted  in  respect  to  the 
sense  of  particular  words,  as  the  circumstances,  i.  e., 
the  facts  connected  with  the  case,  may  require. 

The  answer  to  the  above  questions  which  I  feel  philo- 
logically  compelled  to  give,  is,  that  the  probability  that 
fian-i^G)  implies  immersion,  is  very  considerable,  and 
on  the  whole  a  predominant  one ;  but  it  does  not  still 
amount  to  certainty.  Both  the  classic  use  and  that  of 
the  Septuagint  show,  that  washing  and  copious  affusion 
are  sometimes  signified  by  this  word.  Consequently, 
the  rite  of  baptism  may  have  been  performed  in  one 
of  these  ways,  although  it  is  designated  by  the  word 
(3anri^(D.  Whether  in  fact  it  was  so,  then,  seems  to  be 
left  for  inquiry,  from  other  evidence  than  that  which 
the  word  itself  necessarily  affords. 

In  respect  to  Mark  1 :  9,  efiaTrriodn  . . .  elg  rdv  '  lopdd- 
vnv,  after  what  has  been  said  above,  and  in  considera- 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  85 

tion  that  this  is  the  only  instance  of  the  kind  in  the 
New  Testament,  it  cannot  be  deemed,  as  it  appears  to 
me,  quite  safe  to  build  with  confidence  upon  it.  The 
expressions,  vlxpai  elg  KoXvjifiijdpav,  in  John  9 :  7,  and 
Xovoafiivov  elg  rb  fiaXavelov  (washed  in  a  hath)  in  Alci- 
phron  III.  43,  show  that  the  Greek  verbs  which  desig- 
nate the  -washing  of  the  hands,  face,  or  feet,  and  also  of 
the  body,  may  and  do  take  the  same  construction,  viz., 
the  Accusative  with  els  after  them.  In  either  of  these 
two  last  cases,  plunging  is  not  essential  to  the  idea 
conveyed  by  the  verb,  although  it  is  admissible. 

On  the  whole,  however,  the  probability  seems  to  be  in 
favour  of  the  idea  of  immersion,  when  we  argue  simply 
ex  vi  termini,  i.  e.,  merely  from  the  force  of  the  words 
or  expressions  in  themselves  considered. 

I  know  not  that  I  can  cast  any  further  light  on  this, 
part  of  my  subject,  by  pursuing  simply  philological 
investigation.  ■  However,  as  this  seems  to  leave  us 
somewhat  in  a  state  of  uncertainty  still,  we  must  have 
recourse  to  the  other  means  of  inquiry  suggested 
above. 

§  6.   Circumstances  attending  Baptism. 

II.  Do  the  circumstances  which  attend  the  administra- 
tion of  the  rite  of  baptism,  as  related  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, cast  any  light  upon  the  manner  of  the  rite  itself '? 

1.  The  Baptism  of  John. 

(«)  John  is  called  fia-TLOTng  in  the  following  pas- 
sages ;  viz.,  Matt.  3:1;  11  :  11,  12 ;  14  :  2,  8 ;  16  : 
14;  17:13;  Mark  6:24,  25;  8:28;  Luke  7:20, 
28,  33  ;    9  :  19.     But  as  this  appellation  determines 


86  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

merely  his  office,  and  not  the  manner  in  which  he  per- 
formed the  rite  of  baptism,  it  would  serve  no  purpose 
to  pursue  an  investigation  relative  to  this  word ;  which 
of  course  must  take  its  hue  from  fiajTrifa. 

(b)  I  have  already  remarked,  that  Bretschneider  con- 
siders Matt.  3  :  6,  All  Jerusalem,  etc.,  .  .  .  were  baptized 
w™'  lopdavq,  in  the  Jordan,  as  designating  the  place 
where  they  were  baptized.  This  he  seems  to  justify 
by  an  appeal  to  Mark  1 :  4,  John  was  baptizing  ev  r<3 
iprjjM*),  in  the  desert.  But  the  difference  between  the 
two  cases  is,  that  the  river  Jordan  may  naturally  sig- 
nify the  element  with  which  the  rite  was  performed. 

I  find  nothing  else  in  the  accounts  of  the  several 
Evangelists,  or  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  respecting 
the  baptism  of  John,  which  has  not  already  been  dis- 
cussed under  our  first  inquiry  in  §  5,  excepting  the 
phraseology  in  Matt.  3  :  16,  and  in  Mark  1 :  10.  It  is 
here  related,  that  Jesus,  being  baptized  'by  John,  dvefin 
(dvafiatvuv)  and  tov  vdarog,  went  up  from  the  water, 
viz.,  from  the  river  Jordan.  The  question  has  been 
raised,  whether  this  means  "went  up  out  of  the  water 
of  the  river,"  i.  e.,  rose  up  after  being  plunged  into  the 
river,  and  came  out  of  the  water.  It  becomes  neces- 
sary therefore  to  investigate  this  question. 

Several  considerations  may  serve  to  determine  it. 
(1)  The  rite  of  baptism  was  completed,  before  John 
went  up  from  the  water.  So  says  Matthew,  fSanriadeig 
6  '  Irjoovc ;  and  Mark  also  says,  that  Jesus  tvas  baptized 
by  John  in  the  Jordan,  and  then  ivent  up  from  the  water. 
Both  Evangelists  say,  that  the  action  ongoing  up  took 
place  immediately  or  straightway  {eir&vc,  evdecog)  after 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  87 

the  baptism.  Now  if  the  rite  of  baptism  was  com- 
pleted before  John  emerged  from  the  water  (in  case  he 
was  immerged),  i.  e.,  if  it  was  completed  merely  by 
the  act  of  plunging  him  under  the  water,  then  indeed 
dvafiaivuv  might  possibly  be  supposed  to  apply  to  his 
emerging  from  the  water.  But  who  will  venture  to 
introduce  such  a  conceit  as  this  ?  (2)  Yet  if  any  one 
should  wish  to  do  so,  the  verb  dva(3aivu)  will  hardly 
permit  such  an  interpretation.  This  verb  means  to 
ascend,  mount,  go  up,  viz.,  a  ship,  a  hill,  an  eminence, 
a  chariot,  a  tree,  a  horse,  a  rostrum,  to  go  up  to  the 
capital  of  a  country,  to  heaven,  etc.,  and  as  applied  to 
trees  and  vegetables,  to  spring  up,  shoot  up,  grow  up. 
But  as  to  emerging  from  the  water,  I  can  find  no  such 
meaning  attached  to  it.  The  Greeks  have  a  proper 
word  for  this,  and  one  continually  employed  by  the 
ecclesiastical  fathers,  in  order  to  designate  emerging 
from  the  water ;  and  this  is  dvadvcj,  which  means  to 
come  up  out  of  the  water,  the  ground,  etc.,  or  to  emerge 
from  below  the  horizon,  as  do  the  sun,  stars,  etc.  But 
this  verb  is  never  commuted,  to  my  knowledge,  with 
dvafiaivG).  The  usage  of  each  seems  to  be  perfectly  dis- 
tinct ;  yet  I  do  not  deny  the  possibility  of  employing 
dva(3aiv(o  in  the  sense  of  emerging.  I  know  the  want 
of  accuracy  in  some  writers  too  well  to  hazard  the  as- 
sertion, that  no  example  of  such  usage  can  be  found. 
But  if  there  are  such  examples  they  must  be  very  rare. 
The  New  Testament  surely  does  not  afford  them.  (3) 
The  preposition  d-no  will  not  allow  such  a  construction. 
I  have  found  no  example  where  it  is  applied  to  indi- 
cate a  movement  out  of  a  liquid  into  the  air.     '  E/c 


88  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

would  of  course  be  the  proper  word  to  indicate  such 
a  relation  as  this.  'Ami  denotes  either  the  relation 
of  origin,  as  sprung  from,  descended  from,  etc.,  or 
removal  in  regard  to  distance,  or  the  relation  of  cause 
to  effect,  the  instrument,  etc.  To  designate  emerging 
from  any  thing  that  is  liquid,  I  have  not  found  it 
ever  applied.     (See  Appendix,  Note  2.) 

These  concurrent  reasons,  both  of  circumstances  and 
usus  loquendi,  make  it  a  clear  case,  that  Jesus  retired 
from  the  water  of  the  river,  by  going  up  its  banks. 
Nothing  more  can  properly  be  deduced  from  it. 

As  there  appeaas  to  be  nothing  more  of  a  circum- 
stantial nature,  in  all  the  examples  cited  above  where 
the  baptism  of  John  is  mentioned,  which  can  cast  any 
light  upon  the  point  in  question  (excepting  one  case 
that  stands  connected  with  the  mention  of  Christian 
baptism),  I  proceed  to  make  inquiry  respecting  this 
latter  subject. 

2.  Christian  Baptism,  as  practised  by  the  primitive  disciples  of  Jesus. 

This  is  mentioned  or  alluded  to,  in  Matt.  3 :  14 
28  :  19  ;  Mark  16  :  11 ;  John  3  :  22 ;  4  :  1,  2  ;  Acts  2 
28,  41 ;  8  :  12,  13,  16,  36,  38 ;  9  :  18 ;  10  :  47,  48 ;  16 
15,  33  :  18  :  8;    19  :  3,  5;   22  :  16;    Rom.  6  :  3  bis. 
1  Cor.  1:14,  15,  16,  17  ;  12  :  13 ;  Gal.  3  :  27.     The 
example  in  Acts  19  :  3  may  be  doubtful.    The  passages 
in*  Eph.  5:26;  Tit.  3  :  5,  and  Hcb.  10 :  22,  also  refer 
to  Christian  baptism. 

The  examples  in  Matthew  and  Mark  afford  nothing 
pertinent  to  our  present  object.  But  in  John  3  :  22- 
24,  a  narration  just  alluded  to  above,  occurs  in  connec- 
tion with  mentioning  that  Jesus  abode  in  Judea  and 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  89 

baptized  there,  -which  deserves  our  special  attention. 
The  writer,  after  narrating  what  has  just  been  stated, 
goes  on  to  say :  Now  John  was  baptizing  in  (or  at) 
Enon,  near  Salim,  on  vdara  -rroXXa  tjv  eicel,for  there  was 
MUCH  WATER  there,  or  (more  literally),  there  were  MANY 
waters  there.  The  question  is,  "Whether  John  bap- 
tized at  Enon  near  Salim,  because  the  waters  were  there 
abundant  and  deep,  so  as  to  afford  convenient  means 
of  immersion ;  or  whether  the  writer  means  merely  to 
say,  that  John  made  choice  of  Enon,  because  there  was 
an  abundant  supply  of  water  there  for  the  accommo- 
dation of  those  who  visited  him,  for  the  sake  of  being 
baptized  and  of  hearing  the  powerful  addresses  which 
he  made  to  the  Jews.  The  former  statement  makes 
the  much  water  or  many  waters  necessary,  or  at  least 
convenient  and  desirable,  for  the  purposes  of  the  bap- 
tismal rite ;  the  latter  for  supplying  the  wants  of  the 
multitudes  who  attended  to  the  preaching  of  John. 

It  has  always  seemed  to  me  a  very  singular  mode 
of  expression,  if  the  sacred  writer  meant  to  designate 
the  former  idea,  to  say  on  vda-a  -noXXa  r\v  iicei.  Why 
not  say,  because  the  water  was  deep,  or  abundant, 
simply?  A  single  brook,  of  very  small  capacity,  but 
still  a  living  stream,  might,  with  scooping  out  a  small 
place  in  the  sand,  answer  most  abundantly  all  the  pur- 
poses of  baptism,  in  case  it  were  performed  by  immer- 
sion ;  and  answer  them  just  as  well  as  many  waters 
could  do.  But  on  the  other  hand,  a  single  brook 
would  not  suffice  for  the  accommodation  of  the  great 
multitudes  who  flocked  to  John.  The  sacred  writer 
tells  us,  that  "  there  went  out  to  him,  Jerusalem,  and 


90  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

all  Judea,  and  all  the  neighbouring  region  of  Jordan" 
(Matt.  3:5,)  and  that  they  were  baptized  by  him.  Of 
course  there  must  have  been  a  great  multitude  of 
people.  Nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  for  John 
to  choose  a  place  that  was  watered  by  many  streams, 
where  all  could  be  accommodated. 

The  circumstances  of  the  case,  then,  would  seem  to 
favour  that  interpretation  which  refers  the  mention  of 
many  waters  to  the  wants  of  the  people  who  flocked 
to  hear  John. 

But  let  us  see,  now,  what  the  idiom  of  the  language 
demands.  The  following  passages  serve  to  illustrate 
this  idiom. 

In  Matt.  3:16;  Mark  1:10,  vdarog  (water)  desig- 
nates the  river  Jordan ;  as  we  might  very  naturally 
suppose.  In  Acts  8  :  36-39,  it  is  left  uncertain  by 
the  text,  whether  a  stream  or  fountain  of  water  is  there 
meant;  for  vdop  may  designate  either.  In  Eev.  8:11, 
Tpirov  Tuv  vddruv,  a  third  part  of  the  waters,  refers  both 
to  the  rivers  and  fountains  of  water  that  had  just  been 
mentioned ;  and  so  e«  rtiv  vdarwv  again  in  the  same 
verse.  In  Eev.  17:1,  the  angel  says  to  John :  "I 
will  show  thee  the  punishment  of  the  great  harlot,  who 
sitteth  on  many  waters"  i.  e.,  many  streams  or  rivers 
of  water,  not  merely  a  large  quantity  of  water.  In  17 : 
15  the  same  phrase  and  idea  is  repeated.  In  Kev.  22  : 
1,  we  find  the  expression  iroranbv  vdaroe  £wf/c,  river  of 
the  water  of  life,  which  in  Eev.  22 :  17  is  referred  to 
and  called  vtiup  Says',  water  of  life.  In  Eev.  1 :  15 ; 
14  :  2 ;  19 :  6,  we  have  the  expression  <pu)vi)  vddruv 
tto/Uwv,  tlie  voice  of  many  waters;  which,  in  two  of  the 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM.  91 

passages,  is  followed  by  the  expression,  as  the  voice  of 
thunder,  i.  e.,  a  noise  exceedingly  load.  Now  it  is  the 
waves  of  the  sea,  probably,  to  which  the  writer  here 
alludes ;  for  there  were  no  cataracts  in  Palestine  that 
would  have  supplied  him  with  an  apposite  idea.  But 
these  waves  of  the  sea  are  successive,  and  (so  to  speak) 
different  and  broken  masses  of  water ;  not  one  contin- 
uous mass,  deep  and  abundant.  The  simple  idea  of 
depth  and  abundance  would  not  give  birth  to  the  con- 
ception of  roaring  waters.  It  is  the  movement,  the 
division,  the  succession,  and  the  motion,  which  form 
the  ground  of  this  idea. 

Of  the  Evangelists,  only  Matthew  and  Mark  use  vdup 
in  \h& ^plural.  Matthew  employs  it  four  times;  viz., 
14  :  28,  29  ;  8  :  32  ;  17  :  15.  In  the  three  former 
instances  it  designates  the  waters  (as  we  say)  in  the 
lake  or  sea  of  Tiberias ;  in  the  latter  it  probably  means 
different  or  various  streams  or  fountains  of  water.  In 
this  last  sense,  Mark  employs  it,  in  the  only  example 
in  which  the  plural  is  used  in  his  Gospel ;  viz.,  in  9  : 
22.  ISTo  other  example  of  the  plural  occurs  until  we 
come  to  the  Apocalypse.  Here,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
waters  or  waves  of  the  ocean  are  designated  by  the 
plural  in  1 :  15 ;  14  :  2  ;  19:6.  In  Eev.  7:17;  8  :  10, 
11  bis. ;  11 :  6 ;  14  :  7 ;  16  :  4,  5  ;  17:1,  15,  fountains 
and  streams  (plural)  of  water  are  designatedby  vdara. 

No  example  then  can  be  brought  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment of  the  application  of  vdara  to  designate  merely 
quantity  of  water,  simply  considered  as  deep  and 
abounding.  It  is  either  the  vast  waters  of  a  sea  or 
lake,  as  agitated  by  the  winds  and  broken  into  waves, 


92  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

or  the  multiplied  waters  of  numerous  springs  and 
fountains,  which  are  here  designated  by  the  plural  of 
the  word  in  question. 

That  vdcjp  is  sometimes  employed  to  designate  a 
stream  or  river,  is  clear,  moreover,  from  the  Septua- 
gint  use  of  the  word. 

E.  g.,  Ex.  7  :  15,  "  Behold  he  (Pharaoh)  will  go  out 
em,  to  vdcop,  to  the  water,  i.  e.,  the  river,  for  so  the  next 
clause  explains  it ;  and  thou  shalt  meet  him  on  the  brink 
rov  TTorajiov,  of  the  river.  In  Ex.  8  :  20,  the  same 
phrase,  in  the  same  sense,  is  again  repeated.  So  in  Lev. 
14  :  5,  6,  50-52,  mention  is  made  of  a  bird  to  be  killed 
e0'  vdart  £wvT£,  over  living  water,  i.  e.,  over  a  running 
stream  or  brook ;  although  the  meaning  of  living  water 
may  be,  that  of  a  spring  or  fountain,  which  continually 
sends  forth  fresh  water ;  as  it  is  in  Gen.  26:19;  Jer.  2 : 
13.  The  first,  however,  is  what  I  should  deem  to  be 
the  most  probable  sense  here.  Num.  24  :  6,  As  cedars 
nap'  vdara,  by  the  waters,  i.  e.,  rivers,  or  water-courses, 
which  is  here  the  most  probable  idea ;  comp.  Ps.  1 :  3, 
"  lie  shall  be  as  a  tree  planted  D?a-iaii3~is  by  the  water- 
courses."  2  Chron.  32  :  30,  And  he  [Hezekiah]  stopped 
up  the  issue  rov  vSaroc  Teitiv,  of  the  WATER-COURSE  or 
sluice  Gihon.  Is.  18  :  2,  Who  sendest  .  .  .  epistles  of 
papyrus  over  the  water,  indvo)  rov  vdaroc,  i.  e.,  upon  the 
face  or  surface  of  the  river  Nile. 

Indeed,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  such  a  usage  of 
the  word  vdup,  whenever  occasion  calls  for  it.  The 
simple  question  then  is,  whether  the  occasion  does  call 
for  it,  in  John  3  :  22—21. 

Grotius,  and  after  him  Kuinoel,  thinks  that  vdara 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  93 

TToXkd  designates  such  a  copiousness  of  water,  as  was 
sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  immersion.  Beza,  on  the 
other  hand,  one  of  the  most  acute  judges  of  Greek 
idiom,  says  that  "by  the  appellation  vdara  is  meant 
many  rivulets  (multi  rivi) ;"  and  he  appeals  to  vdarog  in 
Matt.  3  :  16,  in  confirmation  of  this.  He  might  have 
carried  the  appeal  much  farther  if  he  had  been  at  the 
pains  of  consulting  his  Concordance.  Even  in  Homer, 
Od.  XHI.  109,  vdara  occurs  as  designating  great  or 
flowing  streams. 

I  do  not  deny  that  in  the  Suptuagint,  for  example, 
vdop  and  vdara  are  sometimes  promiscuously  used  with- 
out any  perceptible  difference  of  meaning.  In  most 
cases,  however,  this  is  not  the  fact;  but  the  plural 
vdara  is  used  to  designate  great  bodies  of  water  or  nu- 
merous bodies  or  streams  of  it ;  e.  g.,  in  Gen.  1 :  10,  20, 
21,  22  ;  Ex.  2  :  19  ;  8:6;  15  :  27;  20  :  4  ;  and  often 
so  elsewhere.  The  promiscuous  use  -in  some  cases  of 
vdo)p  and  vdara  in  the  version  of  the  Seventy,  seems  to 
be  the  result  of  imitating  the  Hebrew ;  for  the  Hebrew 
has  only  a  plural  form  (ofi??)  to  designate  the  element 
of  water. 

Why  should  the  epithet  noXXd  be  added  to  vdara,  in 
John  3  :  22-24,  if  merely  deep  water,  or  a  quantity  of 
water  sufficient  for  immersing,  was.  intended  ?.  The 
natural  and  primary  meaning  of  iroXyg  is  many  in  op- 
position to  few.  It  has  merely  a  secondary  meaning, 
especially  so  when  in  the  plural  number,  if  at  any 
time  it  designates  largeness  of  quantity,  intensity  of 
degree,  etc. 

On  the  whole,  I  cannot  divest  myself  of  the  impres- 


94  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

sion,  that  there  seems  to  be  something  extravagant  in 
the  supposition,  that  not  only  the  plural  vdara,  which 
naturally  designates  a  large  quantity  or  many  streams 
of  water,  but  also  noXXd  should  be  employed,  in  order 
to  designate  a  quantity  of  water  sufficient  for  baptizing 
by  immersion,  when  any  small  rivulet  would  furnish 
abundant  means  for  such  a  purpose.  I  cannot  avoid 
the  belief,  therefore,  that  vdara  -noXXd  is  designed,  as 
Beza  says,  to  designate  many  streams  or  rivulets.  John 
chose  a  place  abounding  in  these,  when  he  removed 
from  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  in  order  that  the  multi- 
tudes who  flocked  to  him  might  be  accommodated. 

The  passage  which  my  present  purpose  leads  me 
next  to  examine,  is  in  Acts  8  :  36-39.  Philip  ex- 
pounded to  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  the  Scriptures  re- 
specting the  Messiah,  and  he  was  moved  to  believe  in 
that  Saviour  who  was  preached  to  him.  As  Philip 
and  his  new  disciple  journeyed  on  together,  they  came, 
says  the  sacred  writer,  km  rl  vdojp  to  a  certain  water. 
What  kind  of  water  ?  A  rivulet,  river,  spring,  pool, 
or  what  ?  If  the  answer  be,  a  brook  or  river,  then  the 
sense  put  upon  vdara  -noXkd  in  the  paragraph  above  is, 
of  course,  conceded;  i.  e.,  it  is  conceded  that  such  a 
sense  may  be  given  to  vdara,  as  has  here  been  assigned 
to  it.  If  the  answer  be,  to  a  spring,  fountain,  or  pool 
of  water,  then  again  it  is  conceded  that  vdup  designates 
something  besides  the  mere  element  of  water.  The  use 
of  rl  here,  of  necessity  implies  that  uJwp  must  be  either 
a  stream,  or  a  fountain,  or  a  pool  of  warer. 

I  acknowledge  myself  unable  to  determine,  with  any 
good  degree  of  certainty,  which  of  these  is  meant.    Yet 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  95 

I  think  the  probability  to  be  that  it  was  a  fountain  of 
water.  I  draw  this  conclusion  rather  from  the  geog- 
raphy of  the  country  than  from  the  mere  principles 
of  philology.  There  is,  indeed,  a  river  with  branches 
between  Jerusalem  and  Gaza ;  yet  it  runs  not  through 
the  desert,  but  through  the  inhabited  country ;  for  riv- 
ers in  the  East  make  habitable  places.  There  is  an- 
other river  south  of  Gaza.  But  the  place  where  Philip 
met  the  eunuch  was  the  desert  between  Jerusalem  and 
this  place,  Acts  8  :  27.  I  must,  therefore,  think  the 
rl  vdojp  in  Acts  8  :  36,  to  be  a  spring  or  pool  of  water. 

Such  a  collection  of  water  is  usually,  of  course,  in 
some  valley  or  ravine.  Hence  it  is  said  in  v.  88,  They 
went  down  elg  to  vdiop,  TO  the  water,  as  some  would 
render  it,  or  into  the  water,  as  others  insist  it  should 
be  translated.  Does  elg  in  this  case  admit  of  either 
sense  ?     And  which  is  to  be  preferred  ? 

That  elg  with  the  verb  Karaj3aivo)  (which  is  used  in 
Acts  8  :  38)  often  means  going  down  TO  a  place,  is  quite 
certain;  e.  g.,  John  2  :  12,  Jesus  went  down  TO  (elg) 
Capernaum ;  Acts  7  :  15,  Jacob  went  down  TO  (elg) 
Egypt ;  Acts  14  :  25,  They  went  down  TO  (elg)  Attalia  ; 
Acts  16  :  8,  They  went  down  to  (elg)  Troas ;  Acts 
18  :  22,  He  went  down  TO  (elg)  Antioch  ;  Acts  25  :  6, 
Going  down  TO  ( elg)  Cesarea ;  comp.  Luke  10  :  30 ; 
18  :  14 ;  Acts  8  :  26,  et  al.  So  common,  indeed,  is  the 
meaning  of  elg,  when  it  designates  direction  to  a  place 
or  towards  it,  that  Bretschneider  has  given  this  as  its 
first  and  leading  signification.  But  I  have  confined 
my  examples  to  its  connexion  with  narafiaivu). 

On  the  other  hand,  I  find  but  one  passage  in  the 


96  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

New  Testament  where  it  seems  to  mean  into  when  used 
with  the  verb  KaTaj3aivG).  This  is  in  Rom.  10  :  7, 
Who  shall  go  down  elg  afivooov,  into  the  abyss.  Even  here 
the  sense  to  is  good.  And,  in  fact,  when  one  analyzes 
the  idea  of  naraPaivuv,  going  down,  descending,  he  finds 
that  it  indicates  the  action  performed  before  reaching 
a  place,  the  approximation  to  it  by  descent,  real  or 
supposed,  and  not  the  entering  into  it.  'Eioepxofiai  is 
the  appropriate  word  for  entering  into  ;  or  rather  (in  dis- 
tinction from  KarafiaivG))  sfi/3aiv(o  is  the  appropriate 
word  to  signify  entrance  into  any  place  or  thing.  Hence 
I  must  conclude,  on  the  whole,  that  although  in  sev- 
eral of  the  above  cases  of  KaTa[3atva)  with  elg,  we  may 
translate  elg  by  into  and  still  make  good  sense  in  Eng- 
lish, yet  the  real  and  appropriate  signification  of  this 
phraseology  in  the  New  Testament  seems  plainly  to 
be,  going  down  TO  a  place.  Karaj3aiv(o  designates  the 
action  performed  in  order  to  arrive  there  by  descend- 
ing, in  any  sense ;  and  not  the  action  of  entering  into 
the  place  to  which  one  has  gone  down,  although  this 
may  sometimes  be  included  by  popular  diction. 

I  must  come,  then,  to  the  conclusion,  that  Kare^aav 
diKporepoi  elg  to  v6g)(j,  in  Acts  8  :  38,  does  neither  ne- 
cessarily nor  probably  mean,  they  descended  into  the 
water.  This  conclusion  is  rendered  nearly  certain  by 
the  exact  counterpart  or  antithesis  of  this  expression, 
which  is  found  in  v.  39,  where,  after  the  baptism,  it  is 
said,  dvefinoav  ht  rov  vdarog,  they  went  up  from  the  wa- 
ter. We  have  seen  (p.  320)  that,  dva/3aivo)  is  never  em- 
ployed in  the  sense  of  emerging  fro?  a  a  liquid  substance. 
The  preposition  etc,  here,  would  agree  well  with  this 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  97 

idea,  although  it  by  no  means  of  necessity  implies  it ; 
but  dvafiaivu)  forbids  us  thus  to  construe  it.  As,  then, 
to  go  up  from  the  water  is  to  ascend  the  bank  of  a 
stream,  pool,  or  fountain,  so  to  go  down  to  the  water  is 
to  go  down  the  bank  of  such  stream,  fountain,  or  pool, 
and  to  come  to  the  water.  "Whether  the  person,  thus 
going  down  elg  to  Cdojp,  enters  into  it  or  not,  must  be 
designated  in  some  other  way  than  by  this  expression, 
which  of  itself  leaves  the  matter  in  uncertainty. 

I  have  another  remark  to  make  on  KarEJ5noav  dfKpoTepoi 
elg  to  v6o)p,  they  BOTH  went  down  to  the  water.  This  is, 
that  if  naTefinoav  elg  to  vdup  is  meant  to  designate  the  ac- 
tion of  plunging  or  being  immersed  into  the  water,  as  a  part 
of  the  rite  of  baptism,  then  was  Philip  baptized  as  well 
as  the  eunuch ;  for  the  sacred  writer  says  that  both 
went  into  the  water.  Here,  then,  must  have  been  a  re- 
baptism  of  Philip :  and  what  is  at  least  singular,  he 
must  have  baptized  himself  as,  well  as  the  eunuch. 

All  these  considerations  together  show,  that  the  go- 
ing down  to  the  water,  and  the  going  up  from  the  water, 
constituted  no  part  of  the  rite  of  baptism  itself;  for 
Philip  did  the  one  and  the  other  just  as  truly  as  the 
eunuch.  As,  then,  neither  the  language  allows  us  to 
construe  the  passage  as  signifying  immersion  and  emer- 
sion, nor  the  circumstances  permit  us  to  interpret  the 
passage  thus,  we  have  no  good  and  sufficient  grounds 
here  to  consider  this  example  as  making  any  determi- 
nation with  respect  to  the  mode  of  the  baptismal  rite. 

I  come  next  to  the  examination  of  those  passages 
which  have  so  often  been  adduced  and  relied  upon,  in 
the  controversy  respecting  the  original  mode  of  bap- 
5 


98  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

tism,  and  which  are  contained  in  Eom.  6  :  3,  4,  "  Know 
ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Christ 
Jesus,  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  We,  then,  have 
been  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  his  death ;  so 
that  as  Christ  Avas  raised  from  the  dead  by  the  glory 
of  the  Father,  in  like  manner  we  also  should  walk  in 
newness  of  like;"  also  Col.  2  :  12,  "  Being  buried  with 
him  by  baptism ;  with  whom  also  ye  have  been  raised 
up  (or  have  arisen)  by  faith,  through  the  power  of 
God,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead." 

I  might  refer  the  reader  to  what  I  have  written  upon 
these  verses  in  my  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Eomans.  But  as  the  present  disquisition  may  come 
into  the  hands  of  some  who  do  not  possess  that  work, 
I  deem  it  proper  to  transfer  to  this  place  what  I  have 
there  said,  and  also  to  make  some  additions  to  the  re- 
marks thus  transferred.  The  Commentary  is  as  fol- 
lows : 

Verse  3.  '  E/3a7mer#7//i£v  elg  rbv  Xptorov  '  l-noovv.  The 
sense  of  this  depends  on  the  meaning  of  the  formula 
(iaTTTL^eiv  elg  riva — or  [SanTL^eiv  elg  rb  bvo\m  rivog.  («) 
In  regard  to  f3anri$eLv  elg  rb  ovopa,  the  noun  bvo/ia  is,  no 
doubt,  to  be  regarded  as  expletive,  as  tid  in  Hebrew 
often  is.  So  in  the  Jewish  formula  of  baptizing  prose- 
lytes.  If  the  proselyte  was  a  servant,  the  master,  at 
his  baptism,  made  a  declaration  whether  he  intended 
to  make  the  servant  free  as  a  proselyte,  or  to  have  him 
still  remain  a  servant.  This  declaration  was  made 
thus  :  fpfm  "V?  M?a  bap,  he  is  baptized  into  the  flame 
of  freemen  ;  or  *J3|  ti$a  bsp ,  he  is  baptized  into  the  name 
of  a  servant.     So  Matt.  28  :  19,  Baptized  elg  rb  Svofia 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  99 

rov  narpbg,  icai  rov  vlov,  icai  rov  rrvevfiarog  dyiov,  which 
is  the  same  as  baptized  elg  rbv  -rrarepa,  icai  rbv  vtbv,  icai 
to  rrvevim  rb  dviov.  Accordingly,  we  find  dvofia  omit- 
ted in  our  text,  as  also  in  1  Cor.  10  :  2 ;  Gal.  3  :  27  ; 
it  is  used  in  Acts  8  :  16;  19  :  5  ;  1  Cor.  1  :  13,  15. 

(b)  The  sense  of  the  whole  formula  is  more  difficult 
to  be  ascertained.  Most  commentators,  after  Vitringa 
(Obs.  Sac.  111.  22),  explain  elg  as  meaning  into  the  ac- 
knowledgment of,  with  an  implication  of  affiance,  sub- 
jection, discipleship,  etc.  But  the  formula  in  1  Cor. 
12  :  13,  ndvreg  elg  ev  oQ/ia  efiaTT-io§i]\xEv,  seems  not  to 
accord  with  such  an  explanation.  Here  elg  plainly 
means  participation  ;  i.  e.,  by  baptism  we  come  to  be- 
long to  one  body,  to  participate  in  one  body,  to  be  mem- 
bers of  one  body.  In  like  manner,  we  may  say,  by 
baptism  we  come  to  belong  (in  a  special  and  peculiar 
sense,  no  doubt),  to  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  to 
Moses,  1  Cor.  10  :  2  ;  to  Paul,  1  Cor.  1  :  13.  In  this 
way  all  the  passages  may  be  construed  alike,  and  the 
sense  in  all  will  be  good.  The  idea  is,  for  substance, 
that  "  by  baptism  we  become  consecrated  to  any  per- 
son or  thing,  appropriated  (as  it  were)  to  any  person 
or  thing,  so  as  to  belong  to  him  or  to  it,  in  a  manner 
peculiar,  and  involving  a  special  relation,  and  conse- 
quent special  duties  and  obligations." 

This  sense  is  such  an  one  as  fits  the  passage  under 
examination.  Thus  interpreted  it  would  mean :  "  As 
many  of  us  as  have  become  devoted  to  Christ  by  bap- 
tism;  as  many  as  have  been  consecrated  to  Christ  by 
baptism ;  or  been  laid  under  peculiar  obligations,  or 


100  .  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

taken  upon  them  a  peculiar  relation  to  him,  by  being 
baptized." 

Eif  rov  ■ddvarov  avrov  k^aiXTio^i}[itv ,  we  have  been  bap- 
tized into  his  death;  i.  e.,  we  have,  as  it  were,  been 
made  partakers  of  his  death  by  baptism ;  we  have 
come  under  a  special  relation  to  his  death ;  we  have 
engaged  to  die  unto  sin;  as  he  died  for  it ;  we  have  a 
communion  or  participation  in  death  to  sin;  comp. 
Eom.  8:6;  Gal.  2  :  19.  The  being  baptized  into  his 
death  is,  therefore,  an  internal,  moral,  spiritual  thing, 
of  which  the  external  rite  of  baptism  is  only  a  symbol ; 
for  the  relation  symbolized  by  baptism  is  in  its  own 
nature  spiritual  and  moral  The  participation  in  the 
death  of  Christ,  of  which  Paul  here  speaks,  is  surely 
something  more  than  what  is  external — it  is  of  a  moral 
or  spiritual  nature,  of  which  the  external  rite  is 
merely  a  symbol. 

Verse  4.  I,vveTd(pr]ixev  ovv  k.  t.  A.,  we  have  been  buried 
with  him,  then,  by  baptism  into  his  death  ;  i.  e.,  we  are 
(by  being  baptized  into  his  death)  buried  as  he  was, 
a v  v e-dipniiev  where  ovv  means  like,  in  like  manner 
with;  comp.  v.  6  :  also  Eom.  8  :  17 ;  Col.  3 :  1,  Avhere 
any  other  sense  of  ovv  is  out  of  question ;  2  Tim. 
7  :  11,  to  which  the  same  remark  will  apply. 

Most  commentators  have  maintained  that  owerd^iev 
has  here  a  necessary  reference  to  the  mode  of  literal 
bsptism,  which,  they  say,  Avas  by  immersion  ;  and  this, 
they  think,  affords  ground  for  the  employment  of  the 
image  used  by  the  apostle,  because  immersion  (under 
water)  may  be  compared  to  burial  (under  the  earth). 


CIIliTSTIAX   BAPTISM.  101 

» 

It  is  difficult,  perhaps,  to  procure  a  patient  rehearing 
for  this  subject,  so  long  regarded  by  some  as  being  out 
of  fair  dispute.  Nevertheless,  as  my  own  conviction  is 
not,  after  protracted  and  repeated  examinations,  ac- 
cordant here  with  that  of  commentators  in  general,  I 
feel  constrained  briefly  to  state  my  reasons. 

(a)  The  first  is,  that  in  the  verse  before  us  there  is 
a  plain  antithesis — one  so  plain  that  it  is  impossible  to 
overlook  it.  If,  now,  avyerdtfufliev  is  to  be  interpreted 
in  a  physieai  way,  i.  e.,  as  meaning  baptism  in  a  physi- 
cal sense,  where  is  the  corresponding  physical  idea  in 
the  "  opposite  part  of  the  antithesis  or  comparison  ? 
Plainly  there  is  no  such  physical  idea  or  reference  in 
the  other  part  of  the  antithesis.  The  resurrection  there 
spoken  of  is  entirely  a  moral,  spiritual  one  ;  for  it  i« 
one  which  Christians  have  already  experienced  during 
the  present  life,  as  may  be  fully  seen  by  comparing  vs. 
5,  11,  below.  I  take  it  for  granted,  that  after  ijfielc  in 
v.  4,  iyep&evreg  is  implied ;  since  the  nature  of  the 
comparison,  the  preceding  (he  riyepdn  Xpioroc,  and  v.  5, 
make  this  entirely  plain. 

If  we  turn  now  to  the  passage  in  Col.  2:12  (which 
is  altogether  parallel  with  the  verse  under  examina- 
tion, and  has  very  often  been  agitated  by  polemic  wri- 
ters on  the  subject  of  baptism),  we  shall  there  find 
more  conclusive  reason  still  to  argue  as  above  respect- 
ing the  natitre  of  the  antithesis  presented.  "  We  have 
been  buried  with  [Christ]  by  baptism."  What,  now, 
is  the  opposite  of  this  ?  What  is  the  kind  of  resurrec- 
tion from  this  grave  in  which  Christians  have  been 
buried  ?     The  apostle  tells  us  :   "  We  have  risen  with 


102  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

him  [Christ]  by  faith  wrought  by  the  power  of  God 
(rrjg  evepyeiag  rov  deov),  who  raised  him  [Christ]  from 
the  dead."  Here  there  is  a  resurrection  by  faith;  i.  e., 
a  spiritual,  moral  one.  Why,  then,  should  we  look  for 
a  physical  meaning  in  the  antithesis  ?  If  one  part  of 
the  antithesis  is  to  be  construed  in  a  manner  entirely 
moral  or  spiritual,  why  should  we  not  construe  the 
other  in  the  like  manner  ?  To  understand  GvvETa§r\\izv, 
then,  of  a  literal  burial  under  water,  is  to  understand  it 
in  a  manner  which  the  laws  of  interpretation  appear  to 
forbid. 

(b)  Nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  the  word 
owerd^rjiiev,  in  Rom.  6  :  4,  is  equivalent  in  sense  to 
the  word  dneddvopev  in  v.  8.  It  seems  to  be  adopted 
merely  for  the  sake  of  rendering  more  striking  the 
image  of  a  resurrection,  which  the  apostle  employs  in 
the  other  part  of  the  antithesis.  A  resurrection  from 
the  grave  is  a  natural  phrase,  when  one  is  speaking 
with  respect  to  the  subject  of  a  resurrection;  see  John 
5  :  28,  29  ;  comp.  Dan.  12  :  2.  In  accordance  with 
this  statement,  the  context  does  most  plainly  speak, 
both  in  respect  to  Rom.  6  :  4,  and  Col.  2  :  12.  For  in 
respect  to  Rom.  6  :  4,  the  apostle  goes  on  in  the  very 
next  verse  (as  is  usual  with  him)  to  present  the  same 
idea  which  is  contained  in  v.  4,  in  a  different  costume. 
Verse  5  (which  is  a  mere  epexegesis  of  v.  4)  says :  If 
we  have  been  homogeneous  (av^vroi,  like,  of  the  same 
kind)  ivilh  Christ  in  ins  death,  then  shall  we  be  in 
his  resurrection.  The  same  idea  and  explanation  is 
repeated  in  v.  8  —  drceddvo}.iEv  —  ovtf\ao\Lzv,  and  the 
whole  is  summarily   explained  in   v.    11,   So  reckon 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM.  103 

ye  yourselves   to  be    veKpovg    /.ttv  ry  dfiapria  ^Civrag  6e 

Exactly  in  the  same  manner  has  the  apostle  gone  on 
to  explain  ovvrafavreg  in  Col.  2  :  12.  In  v.  13  he 
adds :  "Youve  icpovg  in  your  offences  .  . .  avve^OTzoiyae, 
has  he  [God]  made  alive  with  him  [Christ],  having  for- 
given us  all  our  offences." 

There  can  be  no  real  ground  for  question,  then,  that 
by  owe-dfpijfiev,  in  both  cases,  is  meant  neither  more 
nor  less  than  by  diroddvofiev,  venpoi,  etc.  The  epex- 
egesis  added  in  both  cases  seems  to  make  this  quite 
plain. 

The  only  reason,  then,  which  I  can  find  why  ovve- 
rdcpT]fiev  is  preferred  in  Rom.  6  :  4,  and  in  Col.  2  :  12, 
is,  as  has  been  suggested  above,  that  the  language  may 
be  a  fuller  antithesis  of  the  word  resurrection,  which  is 
employed  in  the  corresponding  part  of  the  comparison. 
"You  who  were  [dead]  buried  with  Christ,"  gives  en- 
ergy to  the  expression. 

(c)  But  my  principal  difficulty  in  respect  to  the  usual 
exegesis  of  Gwerd^pev  is,  that  the  image  or  figure  of 
immersion,  laptism,  is,  so  far  as  I  know,  nowhere  else 
in  Scripture  employed  as  a  symbol  of  burial  in  the 
grave.  Nor  can  I  think  that  it  is  a  very  natural  sym- 
bol of  burial.  The  obvious  import  of  washing  with 
water,  or  immersing  in  water,  is,  that  it  is  symbolical 
of  purity,  cleansing,  purification.  But  how  will  this 
aptly  signify  burying  in  the  grave,  the  place  of  corrup- 
tion, loathsomeness,  and  destruction  ? 

For  these  reasons,  I  feel  inclined  to  doubt  the  usual 
exegesis  of  the  passage  before  us,  and  to  believe  that 


104  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

the  apostle  had  in  view  only  a  burying  which  is  moral 
and  spiritual,  for  the  same  reasons  that  he  had  a  moral 
and  spiritual  (not  a  physical)  resurrection  in  view,  in 
the  corresponding  part  of  the  antithesis. 

Indeed,  what  else  but  a  moral  burying  can  be  meant 
when  the  apostle  goes  on  to  say  :  We  are  buried  with 
him  [not  by  baptism  only,  but]  by  baptism  into  his 
death  ?  Of  course  it  will  not  be  contended  that  a 
literal  physical  burying  is  here  meant,  but  only  a  moral 
one.  And  although  the  words  into  his  death  are  not 
inserted  in  Col.  2  :  12,  yet,  as  the  following  verse  there 
shows,  they  are  plainly  implied.  In  fact  it  is  plain 
that  reference  is  here  made  to  baptism.,  because,  when 
the  rite  was  performed,  the  Christian  promised  to  re- 
nounce sin,  and  to  mortify  all  his  evil  desires,  and  thus 
to  die  unto  sin  that  he  might  live  unto  God.  I  can- 
not see,  therefore,  that  there  is  any  more  necessary 
reference  here  to  the  modus  of  baptism,  than  there  is 
to  the  modus  of  the  resurrection.  The  one  may  as 
well  be  maintained  as  the  other. 

I  am  aware,  however,  that  one  may  say  :  "I  admit 
that  the  burial  with  Christ  has  a  moral  sense,  and  only 
such  an  one  ;  but  then  the  language  in  which  this  idea 
is  conveyed  (avv£rd(p?]iJ,ev)  is  evidently  borrowed  from 
the  custom  of  immersion."  In  reply  to  this,  I  would 
refer  to  the  consideration  under  (c)  above.  The  pos- 
sibility of  this  usage  I  admit ;  but  to  show  that  the 
image  is  natural  and  obvious,  and  that  it  is  a  part  of 
Scripture  usage  elsewhere,  is  what  seems  important,  in 
order  to  produce  entire  satisfaction  to  the  mind  of  a 
philological  inquirer.     At  any  rate,  I  cannot  at  present 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  105 

think  the  case  to  be  clear  enough  to  entitle  any  one  to 
employ  this  passage,  with  confidence,  in  a  contest  re- 
specting the  mode  of  baptism. 

In  now  reviewing  the  whole  of  these  remarks,  I  am 
not  able  to  perceive  that  they  are,  for  substance,  incor- 
rect. The  more  I  reflect  on  the  subject,  the  more  I 
am  persuaded  that  the  essential  part  of  the  idea  which 
is  conveyed  by  ovve~d<pr)fiev  consists  in  this,  viz.,  that 
when  the  Christian  is  baptized  into  the  death  of  Christ, 
Eom.  6  :  4,  he  is  considered  as  "  putting  off  the  old 
man  with  his  lusts,"  as  "crucifying  him,"  as  renouncing 
the  world  and  his  former  sinful  course,  and  engaging 
to  live  a  new  life.  Accordingly,  in  Eom.  vi.,  the  apos- 
tle presents  at  large  the  idea,  that  as  Christ  diedybr  sin 
Avhen  he  suffered  on  the  cross,  so  his  followers  must 
die  to  it ;  i.  e.,  renounce  it,  when  they  become  his  dis- 
ciples. But  they  openly  and  solemnly  profess  to  be 
so  when  they  are  admitted  by  baptism  to  make  a  pub- 
lic profession  of  the  Christian  religion.  Now,  as  he 
djed  and  was  buried,  in  a  physical  sense,  for  or  on  ac- 
count of  sin,  so  we  die  and  are  buried,  in  a  moral  or 
spiritual  sense,  when  we  solemnly  profess  and  engage 
to  hate  sin  and  renounce  it,  as  we  do  in  baptism.  And 
it  seems  to  me,  that  the  specific  reason  why  the  apos- 
tle makes  use  of  ovve-d^fiev  is,  that  it  is  a  stronger  an- 
tithesis to  the  word  ovvnyep-&q-e  (ye  have  been  raised 
up),  which  he  employs  in  the  context.  I  must  repeat 
again,  that  I  find  nothing  in  all  the  ritual  use  of  water, 
as  an  emblem  of  purification  and  consecration  to  God, 
which  seems  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  use  of  baptism 
by  immersion  as  a  symbol  of  Christ's  literal  death  and 
5* 


106  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

burial,  or  rather  as  bearing  a  resemblance  to  this. 
And  this  is  so  strongly  impressed  on  my  mind,  that  I 
must  see  more  evidence  than  I  now  do  that  Paul  meant 
to  make  a  comparison  between  literal  burial  and  literal 
baptism,  before  I  can  attach  any  weight  to  the  argu- 
ment attempted  from  Eom.  6  :  3,  4,  and  Col.  2  :  12,  in 
the  controversy  about  the  mode  of  baptism.  The  im- 
pression is  strong  upon  my  mind,  that  the  gist  of  the 
true  comparison  lies  in  the  being  baptized  INTO  THE 
death  of  Christ  ;  not  in  being  baptized  only. 

When  the  apostle  says,  then,  in  Col.  2  :  12,  aw- 
rac()evTeg  avrti  ev  rio  $<nxTia\ia~i,  I  understand  him  as 
employing  iv  tw  parrriajiari  in  the  Dative,  in  order  to 
signify  the  occasion,  means,  etc.,  in  like  manner  as  the 
Dative  is  elsewhere  used  in  a  similar  way.  Thus, 
when  it  is  said,  He  shall  baptize  you  iv  Trvevfian  ay'm 
icai  TTvpi,  or  iv  nvevfia-i  dyio)  simply,  e.  g.,  Matt.  3  :  11 ; 
Mark  1:8;  Luke  3  :  16 ;  John  1  :  33  ;  Acts  1:5; 
11  :  16 ;  or  when  it  is  said,  We  have  all  been  baptized 
into  one  body,  BY  ONE  SPIRIT,  iv  Lvl  TrvevjiaTi ;  the 
meaning  cannot  be  that  we  have  been  plunged  or  im- 
mersed into  one  Spirit,  or  into  one  fire,  but  that  by 
means  of  these  we  have  been  spiritually  baptized,  or 
that  the  Spirit  has  been  copiously  poured  out  upon 
Christians.  So,  being  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism, 
i.  e.,  by  baptism  into  his  death,  cannot  be  shown  to 
mean,  of  necessity,  any  thing  more,  than  that  by  the 
rite  of  baptism  Christians  profess  to  die  and  be  buried, 
in  a  moral  or  'spiritual  sense,  and  as  to  the  old  man, 
who,  with  his  lusts,  is  to  be  crucified  or  put  to  death. 

I  have  now  examined  all  the  passages  on  which  re- 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  107 

liance  lias  been  principally  had,  in  order  to  show,  from 
circumstances  and  allusions,  in  what  mode  the  rite  of 
baptism  was  originally  performed  in  the  Christian 
church.  If  there  may  be  some  doubt  remaining  in  the 
mind  of  the  reader  whether  I  have  allowed  them  to 
speak  fairly  and  fully,  I  can  only  say,  that  I  have  not 
purposely  either  kept  back  any  evidence  in  regard  to 
the  subject,  of  which  I  am  in  possession,  or  willingly 
magnified  any  view  or  statement  for  the  sake  of  favour- 
ing any  particular  sentiment ;  for  I  am  not  at  all  con- 
cerned in  what  way  the  result  of  this  inquiry  may 
come  out  in  respect  to  the  original  mode  of  baptism. 
The  external  mode  of  an  external  rite  never  can,  with 
my  present  views  of  Christianity,  become  to  me  a  mat- 
ter of  any  peculiar  interest  in  any  other  point  of  view 
than  merely  that  of  a  historical  fact.  My  full  belief  is, 
that  since  "God  is  a  Spirit,"  he  seeks  worshippers  "in 
spirit  and  in  truth ;"  and  that  where  the  heart  is  given 
to  him,  the  manner  of  external  rites  can  never  be  es- 
sential. These  may  concern  the  costume  of  the  church, 
but  never  her  glorious  person. 

I  have  still  an  inquiry  to  make  under  our  present 
head,  and  one  which  seems  to  be  important,  so  far  as 
it  concerns  our  investigation  with  respect  to  facts.  It 
is  this :  Are  there  not  some  circumstances,  related  or 
implied,  in  the  passages  respecting  Christian  baptism, 
which  seem  to  render  the  idea  improbable  that  immer- 
sion was  generally,  or  at  least  universally,  practised  ? 

Let  us  examine  the  narrative  in  Acts  ii.  On  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  Acts  2:1,  the  disciples  were  assem- 
bled in  one  place,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  was  poured  out 


108  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

upon  them  in  a  miraculous  manner,  and  they  began  to 
speak  in  foreign  languages.  This  attracted  great  mul- 
titudes to  hear  them,  and  these  Peter  addressed  in  a 
powerful  manner,  setting  forth  the  claims  of  Jesus,  and 
exhibiting  the  guilt  of  their  unbelief  and  their  enmity 
to  the  Saviour.  Under  this  address,  three  thousand  of 
the  audience  "were  pricked  in  the  heart,"  and  made 
anxious  for  their  salvation.  On  the  very  same  day  on 
which  all  this  happened,  these  three  thousand,  it  would 
seem,  were  all  baptized  and  added  to  the  Christian 
church ;  Acts  2  :  40,  51.  The  question  apposite  to 
our  purpose  is  :    Where  and  how  were  they  bcqrtized? 

Was  it  in  the  brooks  or  streams  near  Jerusalem  ?  I 
cannot  find  this  to  be  probable.  The  feast  of  Pente- 
cost, being  fifty  days  after  the  passover,  Lev.  25  :  15, 
must  fall  into  the  latter  part  of  the  month  of  May,  and 
after  the  Jewish  harvest.  In  Palestine,  this  is  usually 
a  time  of  drought,  or  at  least  of  great  scarcity  of  rain. 
The  brook  Kidron,  on  the  east  of  Jerusalem,  was  not 
a  perennial  stream  ;  and  the  brooks  on  the  south  of  the 
city,  from  the  fountain  of  Shiloh  or  Gihon,  were  not 
adequate,  without  some  special  preparation,  for  the 
purposes  of  baptism  by  immersion,  as  one  must  be 
prone  to  think  from  the  representations  respecting 
them.  Nothing  can  be  more  natural,  moreover,  than 
the  supposition,  that  if  the  apostles  baptized  the  three 
thousand  in  either  of  the  streams  around  Jerusalem,  it 
would  have  been  mentioned ;  just  as  it  is  said  of  John, 
that  he  baptized  in  the  Jordan.  No  such  mention, 
however,  is  made. 

We  must  conclude,  then,  that  if  baptism  by  immer- 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  109 

sion  was  practised  on  this  occasion,  it  mnst  have  been 
in  baths  or  washing-places.  I  do  not  say  that  this  was 
impossible,  for  every  one  acquainted  with  the  Jewish 
rites  must  know  that  they  made  much  use  of  ablu- 
tions, and  therefore  they  would  provide  many  con- 
veniences for  them.  But  let  it  be  remembered,  in  re- 
spect to  the  present  occasion,  that  a  great  many  of  the 
three  thousand  were  foreigners.  How  many  belonged 
to  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  Ave  cannot  tell.  But  we  may 
ask :  Did  the  apostles  baptize,  without  individual  con- 
fession and  profession,  like  that  of  the  eunuch,  insisted 
upon  by  Philip  ?  We  can  hardly  deem  this  probable. 
Supposing,  then,  that  these  were  required,  and  that  the 
apostles  resorted  to  private  baths  in  order  to  baptize, 
would  one  day,  or  rather,  some  three  quarters  of  a  day, 
suffice  to  perform  such  a  work  ?  On  the  supposition 
that  only  the  apostles  baptized,  and  granting,  more- 
over, that  Peter  ended  his  sermon  at  nine  o'clock  in 
the  morning  ("  the  third  hour  of  the  day"),  whereas  he 
only  began  it  then,  the  consequence  would  be,  that  for 
the  remaining  nine  hours  of  the  day,  =  540  minutes, 
each  apostle  must  have  baptized,  on  an  average,  one 
in  about  two  minutes,  inasmuch  as  each  would  have 
had  two  hundred  and  fifty  baptisms  to  perform,  if  they 
were  equally  divided.  However,  I  concede  that  there 
are  some  points  here  which  are  left  undetermined,  and 
which  may  serve  to  aid  those  who  differ  from  me  in 
replying  to  these  remarks.  It  is  true  that  we  do  not 
know  that  baptism  was  performed  by  the  apostles  only, 
nor  that  all  the  three  thousand  were  baptized  before 
the  going  down  of  the  sun.     The  work  may  have  ex- 


110  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

tended  into  the  evening  ;  and  so,  many  being  engaged 
in  it,  and  more  time  being  given,  there  was  a  possi- 
bility that  the  work  in  question  should  be  performed, 
although  immersion  was  practised. 

But  are  these  circumstances  probable  ones,  which 
have  just  been  mentioned  ?  There  is  nothing  in  the 
record  that  would  naturally  lead  us  to  suppose  so,  and 
we  are  left  at  liberty  to  deny  them  with  as  much  prob- 
ability as  any  one  can  assert  them — I  must  think,  on 
the  whole,  with  somewhat  more.  We  shall,  perhaps, 
see  further  reason  for  this  opinion  in  the  sequel. 

In  Acts  10  :  47,  Peter  says,  in  respect  to  Cornelius 
and  those  with  him  who  believed  on  Christ :  "  Can  any 
one  forbid  water,  that  these  should  be  baptized?"  p/rt 
rb  vdojp  KuXvocu  dvvarai  rig ;  Observe  that  the  idea  in 
this  case  seems  almost  of  necessity  to  be :  "Can  any 
one  forbid  that  water  should  be  brought  in,  and  these 
persons  baptized?"  He  does  not  say:  Can  any  one 
forbid  the  bath,  or  the  river,  i.  e.,  the  use  of  these,  by 
which  these  persons  should  be  baptized ;  but  the  inti- 
mation seems  to  be  that  they  were  to  be  baptized  on 
the  spot,  and  that  water  was  to  be  brought  in  for  this 
purpose.  I  admit  that  another  meaning  is  not  neces- 
sarily excluded,  which  would  accord  with  the  practice 
of  immersion  ;  but  I  am  persuaded  that  the  more  easy 
and  natural  interpretation  is  such  as  I  have  now  given. 

I  have  the  same  persuasion  respecting  the  baptism 
of  the  jailer,  recorded  in  Acts  16  :  83.  Here  it  is  said, 
that  the  jailer,  after  the  earthquake  and  other  occur- 
rences, and  when  brought  under  deep  convictions  of 
sin,  took  Paul  and  Silas,  at  midnight,  and  washed  them 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  Ill 

from  their  stripes,  i.  e.,  washed  off  the  blood  which 
flowed  from  the  wounds  made  by  their  stripes ;  and 
straightway  (-apaxpTjfia,  forthwith)  he  was  baptized,  and 
all  his.  Where  was  this  done?  At  the  jail,  or  in 
the  jail,  where  he  met  Paul  and  Silas ;  at  any  rate, 
within  the  precincts  of  the  prison  ;  for  after  the  whole 
transaction  was  completed,  he  brought  Paul  and  Silas 
to  his  house,  and  gave  them  refreshments ;  Acts  16  :  34. 
If  it  be  said,  that  there  was  probably  a  bath  in  the  jail, 
and  that  the  jailer  and  his  household  were  baptized  in 
it,  I  answer,  that  such  accommodations  in  the  prisons 
of  ancient  days  are  at  least  very  improbable.  Who 
does  not  .enow  that  mercy  or  convenience  in  a  prison 
is  a  thing  of  modern  times — the  work  or  result  of 
Christian  beneficence,  not  of  Pagan  compassion.  Still, 
the  possibility  of  this  cannot  be  denied.  But  the  prob- 
ability is  surely  not  very  great,  when  we  reflect,  that 
neither  here  nor  in  the  instance  recorded  in  Acts 
10  :  47,  -is  any  intimation  given  of  a  resort  to  the  bath 
in  order  to  perform  the  rite  of  baptism.  One  may 
naturally  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  water  brought 
in  to  wash  the  stripes  of  Paul  and  Silas,  also  answered 
the  j)urpose  of  baptizing  him  who  furnished  it. 

In  Acts  22  :  16,  Paul  relates  the  words  of  Ananias 
to  him  before  he  was  baptized,  and  after  he  had  for 
some  days  been  under  most  distressing  conviction  of 
sin.  They  are  these :  Arise,  (3diTTioai,  baptize  thyself 
(Middle  voice),  i.  e.,  receive  baptism,  ical  d-rroXovaai, 
and  WASH  AWAY  thy  sins.  Here  the  words  j3a7TTtaai 
and  dnSXovaai  appear  to  be  treated  as  in  a  manner 
equivalent  to  each  other ;  and  the  natural  conclusion 


112  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

would  seem  to  be,  that  washing,  or  washing  off,  was  the 
manner  of  the  baptism  on  this  occasion.  Still,  I  ac- 
knowledge that  this  is  not  a  necessary  conclusion,  for 
bathing  or  immersion  would  produce  the  effect  of 
washing  off. 

But  there  is  a  passage  in  1  Cor.  10  :  2,  which  seems 
of  necessity  to  imply  that  immersion  is  not  essential  to 
the  idea  of  baptism.  It  runs  thus :  All  were  baptized 
into  Moses,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.  This  re- 
fers, of  course,  to  the  period  and  the  transactions  when 
the  children  of  Israel  passed  through  the  Eed  Sea,  and 
eluded  the  pursuit  of  Pharaoh  and  his  host.  But  how 
were  they  baptized,  on  this  occasion,  in  the  cloud  and 
in  the  sea  ?  The  reader  will  be  enabled  to  judge  for 
himself,  by  examining  well  the  following  passage, 
which  records  the  history  of  that  occasion  : 

Ex.  14  :  19-22,  "  And  the  angel  of  God  which  went 
before  the  camp  of  Israel,  removed,  and  went  behind 
them ;  and  the  pillar  of  the  cloud  went  from  before 
their  face,  and  stood  behind  them  :  And  it  came  be- 
tween the  camp  of  the  Egyptians  and  the  camp  of  Is- 
rael ;  and  it  was  a  cloud  and  darkness  to  them,  but  it 
gave  light  by  night  to  these  ;  so  that  the  one  came  not 
near  the  other  all  the  night.  And  Moses  stretched 
out  his  hand  over  the  sea ;  and  the  Lord  caused  the 
sea  to  go  bach  by  a  strong  east  wind  all  that  night,  and 
made  the  sea  dry  land,  and  the  waters  were  divided. 
And  the  children  of  Israel  went  into  the  midst  of  the 
sea  upon  the  dry  ground;  and  the  waters  were  a  wall 
unto  them,  on  their  right  hand  and  on  their  left." 

Here,  then,  was  the  cloud  which  first  stood  before 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  113 

them,  and  then  behind  them ;  and  here  were  the 
waters  of  the  Red  Sea,  like  a  wall  on  their  right  hand 
and  on  their  left.  Yet  neither  the  cloud  nor  the  waters 
touched  them.  "  They  went  through  the  midst  of  the 
sea  upon  dry  ground."  Yet  they  were  baptized  in  the 
cloud  and  in  the  sea,  The  reason  and  ground  of  such 
an  expression  must  be,  so  far  as  I  can  discern,  a  sur- 
rounding of  the  Israelites  on  different  sides  by  the 
cloud  and  by  the  sea,  although  neither  the  cloud  nor 
the  sea  touched  them.  It  is,  therefore,  a  kind  of  figura- 
tive mode  of  expression,  derived  from  the  idea  that 
baptizing  is  surrounding  with  a  fluid.  But  whether 
this  be  by  immersion,  affusion,  suffusion,  or  washing, 
would  not  seem  to  be  decided.  The  suggestion  has 
sometimes  been  made,  that  the  Israelites  were  sprinkled 
by  the  cloud  and  by  the  sea,  and  this  was  the  baptism 
which  Paul  meant  to  designate.  But  the  cloud  on  this 
occasion  was  not  a  cloud  of  rain ;  nor  do  we  find  any 
intimation  that  the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea  sprinkled 
the  children  of  Israel  at  this  time.  So  much  is  true, 
viz.,  that  they  were  not  immersed.  Yet,  as  the  lan- 
guage must  evidently  be  figurative  in  some  good  de- 
gree, and  not  literal,  I  do  not  see  how,  on  the  whole, 
we  can  make  less  of  it,  than  to  suppose  that  it  has  a 
tacit  reference  to  the  idea  of  surrounding  in  some  way 
or  other. 

That  washing  was  at  least  one  method,  and  perhaps 
even  the  more  ordinary  one  of  practising  baptism,  may 
be  thought  to  find  some  support  in  such  passages  as 
the  following,  viz.,  Eph.  5  :  26,  where  Christ  is  spoken 
of  as  having  loved  the  church,  and  given  himself  for 


114  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

it,  tliat  lie  might  sanctify  it,  having  cleansed  it  BY  THE 
washing  of  water,  etc.  Here  the  word  used  for  wash- 
ing is  Xovrpti,  which  some  render  bath.  Literally  and 
originally,  the  word,  according  to  the  laws  of  deriva- 
tion, must  signify  :  (1)  The  means  of  washing,  inasmuch 
as  it  comes  from  Xovu,  to  wash,  in  particidar,  to  wash 
one's  person,  in  whole  or  in  part,  e.  g.,  to  bathe,  to  wash 
off  the  blood  from  a  wound,  etc.  But  in  this  sense, 
i.  e.,  as  the  means  of  toashing,  bath,  bathing-place,  etc., 
it  is  applied  by  Homer  only  in  the  plural  number. 
(2)  It  means  the  act  of  washing,  ivashing  off,  cleansing, 
etc.  In  the  singular  number  it  occurs  first  in  Hesiod, 
and  is  employed  to  signify  washing,  etc.,  as  just  stated. 
Passow  has  exhibited  its  appropriate  usage.  The 
reader  will  see  in  this  case,  that  the  idea  of  washing  is 
connected  with  the  idea  of  cleansing,  and  that  the  refer- 
ence is  clearly  made  to  baptism.  But  the  modus  of 
this  washing  is  no  further  determined,  than  that  it  is 
so  as  to  cleanse.  This,  indeed,  is  consistent  with  im- 
mersion, bathing,  or  simple  washing,  and  of  course  it 
may  be  said  to  leave  the  subject  undetermined. 

In  Titus  3  :  5,  we  have  a  similar  passage  :  He  saved 
us  dta  Xovrpov  -rraXiyjeveoiac.  by  THE  WASHING  of  re- 
generation, i.  e.,  by  that  purification  or  cleansing  which 
regeneration  confers.  The  reference,  however,  although 
the  language  is  figurative,  is,  beyond  all  doubt,  to 
the  rite  of  baptism,  which  was  emblematic  of  purifica- 
tion by  the  Spirit.  Still  the  word  Xovrpov,  washing,  or 
(if  you  please)  laver,  will  not  absolutely  determine  the 
method  in  which  the  water  was  applied.  If  it  means 
bath,  then  we  can  hardly  argue  the  practice  of  total  im- 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  115 

mersion  from  it,  as  baths  are  not  usually  adapted  to 
such  a  purpose. 

In  Heb.  10  :  22,  the  apostle  speaks  of  Christians  as 
drawing  near  to  God  with  a  true  heart  and  full  faith, 
being  sprinkled  or  cleansed  (eppavriopevoi),  as  to  their 
hearts,  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  WASHED  (XeAovfievot), 
as  to  their  body,  with  pure  water.  That  he  refers  to  the 
rite  of  baptism  here  seems  hardly  to  admit  of  any 
doubt.  The  idea  of  washing  or  cleansing  is  expressed 
by  XeXovpivoi ;  but  still,  the  mode  of  effecting  this, 
whether  by  immersion,  bathing,  or  washing,  does  not 
seem  to  be  necessarily  determined ;  for  any  one  of 
these  would  effect  a  cleansing  of  the  body.  Yet  the 
more  natural  understanding  of  the  passage  in  this,  as 
in  the  two  preceding  instances,  would  seem  to  be  a 
washing  with  water. 

I  have  now  examined  all  those  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  in  which  the  circumstances  related  or  im- 
plied would  seem  to  have  a  bearing  on  the  question 
before  us,  viz. :  Whether  the  MODE  of  baptism  is  deter- 
mined by  the  sacred  writers  ?  I  am  unable  to  find  in 
them  any  thing  wliich  appears  to  settle  this  question. 
I  find  none,  I  am  quite  ready  to  concede,  which  seem 
absolutely  to  determine  that  immersion  was  not  prac- 
tised. But  are  there  not  some,  which  have  been  cited 
above,  that  serve  to  render  it  improbable  that  immer- 
sion was  always  practised,  to  say  the  least?  I  can 
only  say,  that  such  is  my  persuasion.  The  reader  has 
the  evidence  before  him,  and  can  judge  for  himself. 
He  will  indulge  me,  I  hope,  in  the  same  libeity.  I  do 
consider  it  as  quite  plain,  that  none  of  the  circumstan- 


116  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

tial  evidence  thus  far  proves  immersion  to  have  been 
exclusively  the  mode  of  Christian  baptism,  or  even 
that  of  'John.  Indeed,  I  consider  this  point  so  far 
made  out,  that  I  can  hardly  suppress  the  conviction, 
that  if  any  one  maintains  the  contrary,  it  must  be 
either  because  he  is  unable  rightly  to  estimate  the  na- 
ture or  power  of  the  Greek  language  ;  or  because  he  is 
influenced  in  some  measure  by  party  feeling ;  or  else 
because  he  has  looked  at  the  subject  in  only  a  partial 
manner,  without  examining  it  fully  and  thoroughly. 

Thus  much  for  the  evidence  derivable  from  the  cir- 
cumstances attending  the  baptisms  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament.  But  were  not  these,  in  all  proba- 
bility, conformed  in  mode  to  baptisms  already  extant 
among  the  Jews  ?  This  leads  us  to  another  distinct 
head  of  inquiry. 

§  7.  Jewish  Proselyte- Baptism. 

III.  Was  baptism,  as  an  initiatory  rite,  practised  in 
the  Jewish  church  antecedently  to  the  time  when  Christian 
uaptism  commenced  ? 

This  is  a  subject  replete  with  difficulty  in  some  re- 
spects, because  Ave  have  not  adequate  means  of  casting 
upon  it  all  the  light  which  is  desirable.  I  begin  with 
the  ceremonies  prescribed  by  the  Mosaic  law  in  respect 
to  the  sacred  use  of  water  in  ablutions,  and  inquire 
whether  there  is  any  thing  in  them  which  will  render 
one  mode  of  Christian  baptism  more  probable  than  an- 
other.    We  find,  then,  the  following  results  : 

1.  That  ivasliing  (he  clothes  only  is  one  of  the  ceremo- 


CHKISTIAN   BAPTISM.  117 

nial  rites  of  purification.  The  first  direction  of  this 
nature  we  find  in  Ex.  19  :  10-14.  It  was  made  in  re- 
lation to  a  preparation  for  the  giving  of  the  law  at 
Mount  Sinai,  and,  of  course,  on  a  most  solemn  and  in- 
teresting occasion.  Other  similar  directions,  on  a  va- 
riety of  occasions,  and  for  the  like  purpose  of  purifica- 
cation,  the  reader  will  find  by  consulting  Lev.  11 :  28, 
40 ;  13  :  34,  54,  58  ;  14  :  47  ;  15  :  17  ;  Num.  8  :  7, 
21 ;  19  :  10,  21.  We  shall  see  in  the  sequel  that  this 
is  a  different  rite  from  that  of  washing  the  person. 

2.  That  washing  the  person  is  also  enjoined  by  way 
of  purification.  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  washed  with 
water  when  entering  on  the  priest's  office ;  Ex.  29:4; 
30  :  19-21 ;  40  :  12  ;  Lev.  8:6;  16  :  4,  24.  On  other 
occasions,  also,  when  they  contracted  any  pollution, 
they  were  commanded  to  wash ;  Lev.  22  :  6.  In  all 
these  and  the  like  cases,  the  Hebrew  verb  is  yn^i ; 
which  corresponds  to  the  Greek  Xovu. 

3.  That  both  the  clothes  and  person  were  to  be  washed, 
on  a  great  variety  of  occasions,  for  the  sake  of  purifi- 
cation. E.  g.,  Lev.  14  :  8,  9  ;  15  :  5,  6,  7,  8, 10,  11, 13, 
21,  22,  27  ;   16  :  26,  28 ;  17  :  15 ;   Num.  19  :  7,  8,  19. 

4.  That  sprinkling  ivas  used  most  frequently  of  all,  by 
way  of  purification  and  consecration.  Especially  was 
the  sprinkling  of  blood  practised  for  this  purpose  ;  e.  g., 
Ex.  24  :  6-8  ;  29  :  20,  21 ;  Lev.  1:5,  11 ;  3  :  2,  8, 
13 ;  4  :  6,  17  ;  5:9;  7:2;  8  :  19,  24,  30 ;  9  :  12, 18  ; 
14:7,  51;  16:14,  15,  19;  Num.  18:17;  19:4. 
Also  the  sprinkling  of  oil;  e.  g.,  Lev.  8  :  11  ;  14  :  16, 
27.  Also  the  sprinkling  of  the  water  of  purification  or 
separation ;  e.  g.,  Num.  8:7;  19  :  13,  18,  20,  21. 


118  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

5.  That  affusion  was  also  used,  in  the  ritos  of  purifica- 
tion. E.  g.,  Lev.  14  :  18,  29,  of  oil  to  be  poured  on  the 
head  of  him  who  was  to  "be  cleansed.  So  the  priests 
were  bedewed  with  oil,  when  consecrated  to  their 
office. 

6.  That  smearing  over  was  also  a  rite  of  purification. 
E.  g.,  with  oil ;  Lev.  14  :  17,  28  ;  of  blood,  Lev.  14 :  25 ; 
16  :  18. 

The  statement  just  made,  is  the  result  of  an  exami- 
nation, extended  through  the  whole  of  the  ceremonial 
laws  of  Moses.  It  is  quite  possible  that  some  indi- 
vidual instances  may  have  escaped  my  notice,  in  such 
a  protracted  examination  ;  but  this  can  in  no  way  affect 
the  result  of  the  examples  now  produced.  Do  all  or 
any  of  these  examples  cast  any  light  upon  the  Christian 
rite  of  baptism? 

We  may  answer  this  question  by  saying,  that  they 
serve,  at  least,  to  show  that  there  is  no  trace  of  any  such 
rite  as  baptism,  prescribed  by  the'  Jewish  ceremonial 
law,  as  an  initiatory  rite,  i.  e.,  as  one  which  was  essen- 
tial in  order  to  make  a  profession  of  the  Jewish  religion. 
It  is  true,  indeed,  that  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  washed 
with  water,  when  about  to  be  inducted  into  the  priest's 
office ;  see  Ex.  29  :  4 ;  Lev.  8:6.  But  it  is  equally 
true,  that  this  was  only  one  of  very  numerous  rites  of 
induction  to  that  office.  The  reader  will  find  them  all 
described  at  full  length,  in  Ex.  c  29,  and  Lev.  c.  8. 

It  appears  quite  plain,  that  the  washing  of  the  priests, 
as  preparatory  to  their  entering  upon  their  office,  was 
in  no  other  sense  initiatory,  than  as  a  means  of  cere- 
monial purification,  and  an  emblem  of  that  purity  of 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  119 

heart  which  was  essential  to  a  proper  discharge  of  the 
duties  of  their  office.  This  rite,  therefore,  was  not  dif- 
ferent, as  to  its  essential  meaning  or  intention,  from  the 
like  rite  as  practised  by  others,  for  the  sake  of  cere- 
monial purification.  Indeed,  I  can  see  no  difference  as 
to  the  object  which  was  to  be  attained,  between  wash- 
ing the  clothes,  the  person,  or  the  clothes  and  the  per- 
son both.  It  seems  to  be  the  fact,  however,  that  wash- 
ing of  the  person  only,  was  a  ceremony  confined  to  the 
order  of  the  priests ;  as  may  be  seen  by  consulting  the 
passages  under  No.  2  above.  But  at  Mount  Sinai,  all 
the  people  were  required  to  wash  their  clothes,  Ex.  19  : 
10-14 ;  and  so  on  divers  other  occasions,  as  may  be 
seen  by  the  references  under  No.  1.  On  a  variety  of 
occasions,  likewise,  all  who  had  contracted  certain  kinds 
of  pollution,  were  required  both  to  "  wash  their  clothes 
and  bathe  themselves  in  water."  The  word  bathe,  in  all 
the  cases  appealed  to  under  No.  3  where  it  is  used,  cor- 
responds to  the  Hebrew  f  rn  to  wash.  Why  our  trans- 
lators have  rendered  the  word  wash  in  one  case,  and 
bathe  in  another,  it  is  difficult  to  see.  Neither  washing 
nor  bathing  appear  to  be  the  same  as  plunging  or  im- 
mersing ;  for  neither  the  word  ifltpi  to  merge,  immerse, 
nor  the  word  t]tto*.  to  overwhelm,  inundate,  is  used  in 
reference  to  these  ceremonial  washings. 

As  this  is  a  point  of  some  importance,  I  must  dwell 
for  a  moment  upon  it.  The  word  into,  dip,  immerse,  is 
used  in  Lev.  4 :  6 ;  14  :  16  ;  9  :  9,  in  respect  to  the 
priest's  dipping  his  finger  into  blood  or  oil,  in  order  to 
sprinkle  them  before  the  Lord.  So  also  in  Lev.  4:17; 
and  in  a  similar  way  as  to  the  dipping  of  various  things 


120  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

into  blood,  in  order  to  sprinkle  it,  in  Lev.  14  :  6,  51 ; 
Ex.  12  :  22.  So  of  dipping  a  bundle  of  hyssop  into 
water,  in  order  to  sprinkle  it,  Num.  19  :  18.  In  all 
these  cases,  it  is  evident  at  first  view,  that  the  dipping 
of  the  finger,  the  hyssop,  etc.  is  merely  preparatory  to 
a  rite  to  be  performed,  and  is  in  no  case  of  itself  a  pro- 
per rite. 

All  the  other  examples  of  bsp  in  the  Hebrew  Scrip- 
tures, are  very  few-;  and  I  refer  to  them  here,  in  order 
that  any  one  who  chooses  may  consult  them  :  Ruth  2  : 
14  ;  Deut.  33  :  24  ;  Ezek.  33 :  15,  t^b^n,  dyed,  coloured; 
1  Sam.  14  :  28  ;  Job  9  :  81 ;  2  K.  5  :  14,  which  is  the 
only  example  respecting  immersion  of  the  whole  per- 
son, and  refers  to  Naaman's  dipping  himself  seven 
times  in  the  river  Jordan ;  2  K.  8  :  15  ;  Gen.  37  :  31  ; 
Joshua  3  :  15,  which  respects  the  dipping  of  the  priest's 
feet,  who  bore  the  ark,  in  the  brim  of  the  river  Jordan. 

As  to  the  other  word  nod,  it  properly  means  to  inun- 
date, to  overflow,  overwhelm,  etc.  The  only  examples  of 
its  occurrence  in  the  Mosaic  law,  are  in  Lev.  6:28,  re- 
specting a  brazen  pot ;  Lev.  15  :  12,  respecting  a  vessel 
of  wood  ;  and  Lev.  15  :  11,  respecting  the  hands  of  a 
person.  In  these  three  cases,  our  English  version  ren- 
ders the  word  tiwsSi  by  rinsed,  which  implies  immersion. 
But  in  no  case  is  the  word  applied  to  the  whole  person, 
or  to  the  clothes  of  any  individual. 

We  find,  then,  no  example  among  all  the  Levitical 
washings  or  ablutions,  where  immersion  of  the  person 
is  required.  The  word  frn,  which  is  almost  uniformly 
employed,  and  which  our  translators  have  rendered 
luash  and  bathe,  does  not  imply  immersixm.     It  may,  in- 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  121 

deed,  admit  the  idea  of  immersion,  because  a  washing 
or  ablution  may  be  effected  in  this  way ;  but  on  the 
other  hand,  the  meaning  of  the  verb  is  equally  well  an- 
swered, without  immersion. 

Washing  the  clothes,  then,  or  washing  the  person,  or 
both  the  person  and  clothes ;  or  sprinkling  of  blood, 
oil,  water  ;  affusion  of  oil,  or  smearing  with  oil  or  blood ; 
were  all  the  rites  which  had  relation  to  liquid  substances, 
so  far  as  they  were  concerned  with  application  to  per- 
son or  dress.  From  none  of  these,  can  any  example  be 
drawn,  to  show  or  even  illustrate  the  necessity  of  total 
immersion,  as  an  initiatory  rite  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation. 

Is  there,  then,  any  thing  in  the  ancient  law  which  en- 
joins baptism,  on  either  the  Jew  or  the  Gentile  proselyte, 
when  becoming  a  member  of-  the  Hebrew  community 
or  church  ?  I  cannot  find  a  word  to  this  purpose  in 
the  Scriptures. .  In  the  original  institution  of  the  rite 
of  circumcision,  Gen.  17  :  9-14,  this  rite,  and  this  only, 
is  demanded,  as  the  ceremonial  of  entrance  among  the 
Jewish  community.  The  same  requisition  is  made,  both 
of  the  native  Hebrew  and  of  any  foreigner  who  comes 
under  his  control.  So  again  in  Ex.  12  :  48,  49,  it  is  ex- 
pressly enjoined,  that  the  stranger  shall  be  circumcised, 
in  order  to  keep  the  feast  of  the  passover ;  and  it  is  at 
the  same  time  declared,  that  "  one  law  shall  be  to  him 
that  is  home-born,  and  to  'the  stranger."  In  all  this, 
there  is  not  even  a  reference  to  any  ablution  whatever.' 

Ablution,  then,  was  not  an  original  condition   of 
membership  of  the  church,  under  the  ancient  dispen- 
sation.    It  was  obligatory,  as  we  have  seen,  in  many 
G 


122  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

forms,  upon  those  who  were  already  members  of  it,  but 
NOT  to  their  becoming  so. 

In  later  times,  then,  than  the  giving  of  the  law  in  the 
wilderness,  must  the  practice  of  baptizing  proselytes 
have  sprung  up.  It  was  an  idea  very  natural  to  a  Jew, 
that  a  man  who  passed  over  from  a  heathen  state  to  the 
Hebrew  church,  was  unclean  of  course  in  his  heathen 
state,  and  needed  to  be  purified.  Hence  the  ablution 
so  common  among  the  Jews,  in  order  to  become  cere- 
monially pure,  might  very  easily  be  extended  to  him. 
And  one  can  hardly  doubt,  that  in  consequence  of  such 
analogical  reasoning,  baptism  came  at  length  to  be  con- 
sidered by  the  Jews,  as  essential  to  the  due  introduc- 
tion of  a  Gentile  to  their  church. 

But  did  such  a  custom  exist  among  the  Jews,  ante- 
cedently to  the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist  and  of 
Jesus  ?  A  question  long  and  variously  disputed,  and 
which  seems,  as  yet,  hardly  to  be  settled  to  the  satis- 
faction of  all.  The  impression,  however,  has  become 
widely  extended  in  the  Christian  church,  that  such  was 
the  fact ;  and  inasmuch  as  it  is  conceded  that  proselyte 
baptism  was  usually  by  immersion,  it  becomes  necessary 
to  our  purpose,  to  examine  into  this  subject. 

The  reader  should  be  advertised,  however,  that  there 
is  by  no  means  a  general  agreement  among  the  learned, 
in  regard  to  this  question.  While  the  majority  of  the 
older  writers  have  adopted  the  opinion  of  Selden,  Light- 
foot,  Danz,  Buxtorf,  Schoettgcn,  Wetstein,  and  others, 
that  the  baptism  of  proselytes  was  common  when  John 
the  Baptist  made  his  appearance  as  a  public  teacher  ; 
others  of  no  small  ability  and  reputation  have  denied 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  123 

strenuously  that  there  is  any  satisfactory  evidence  of 
this.  Among  these  are  Ernesti,  Bauer,  Paulus,  De 
"Wctte,  and  (in  a  modified  way)  E.  Gr.  Bengel,  of  recent 
times ;  also  John  Owen,  Wernsdorf,  Zeltner,  Carpzov, 
and  others,  among  the  older  writers.  Most  of  these 
writers  I  have  consulted ;  a  great  part  of  them,  how- 
ever, do  but  repeat  what  had  been  already  said  by  some 
leading  author.  The  substantial  part  of  the  case,  I 
shall  now  endeavour  to  lay  before  the  reader. 

1.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  among  the  Jews  of 
later  times,  probably  from  some  time  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  third  century  downwards,  the  baptism  of  prose- 
lytes has  been  generally  regarded  as  a  constituent  part 
of  the  rite  of  initiation  into  the  Jewish  community, 
when  a  Gentile  convert  was  to  be  introduced. 

Maimonides,  in  the  twelfth  century,  speaks  very  fully 
and  positively  as  to  such  a  practice  ;  and  he  extends  it 
to  the  Hebrews,  as  well  as  to  others.  "  By  three 
things,"  says  he,  "  Israel  was  introduced  to  the  cove- 
nant ;  by  circumcision,  baptism,  and  sacrifice.  Circum- 
cision was  in  Egypt ;  as  it  is  said,  No  uncircumcised 
person  shall  eat  of  the  passover.  Baptism  was  in  the 
desert,  before  the  giving  of  the  law ;  as  it  is  said,  Thou 
shalt  sanctify  them  to-day  and  to-morrow,  and  they  shall 
wash  their  clothes,"  etc.  Issure  Biah,  cap.  13.  Here 
he  has  mistaken  the  washing  of  the  clothes  for  the  im- 
mersion of  the  whole  person ;  a  palpable  mistake,  as 
may  be  seen  by  comparing  the  cases  of  ablution  already 
cited  above.  Again:  "  Whenever  any  Gentile  wishes 
to  be  received  into  the  covenant  of  Israel,  and  associate 
with  them,  .  .  .  circumcision,  baptism,  and  voluntary 


124  .  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

offering,  are  required.  If  the  person  be  a  female,  then 
only  baptism  and  offering."     Ibid. 

Danz,  in  two  dissertations  on  this  subject,  printed 
in  Meuschen's  Nov.  Test.  ex.  Talmude  illustration,  has 
cited  examples  in  abundance  to  show  that  such  is  and 
has  been  the  general  opinion  of  the  Jewish  Eabbins. 
In  fact,  it  has  become  among  them  even  a  trite  maxim, 
ilitsi  iifcira  "J3>  ^3  yn* .  there  is  wo  proselyte  until  he  is 
circumcised  and  baptized. 

Yet,  all  this  being  conceded,  as  to  the  opinion  of 
Eabbins  earlier  and  later,  it  makes  but  little  to  our 
purpose.  One  has  only  to  look  into  the  Gospels,  or 
into  the  Mishna,  in  order  to  find  conclusive  evidence 
that  the  Jews  have  added  unnumbered  ceremonies  to 
their  ancient  law.  Whether  they  hold  these  to  be 
binding  or  otherwise,  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence  to 
our  present  purpose.  Our  present  inquiry  respects 
only  the  antiquity  of  the  usage  in  question ;  and  on  this 
point  all  the  overwhelming  mass  of  quotations  pro- 
duced in  the  pedantic  and  tedious  dissertations  of 
Danz  give  little  or  no  satisfaction. 

The  oldest  source  of  Jewish  Eabbinical  traditions, 
next  after  the  works  of  Josephus  and  Philo,  the  New 
Testament,  and  the  Targums  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan, 
is  the  Mishna,  i.  e.,  repetition,  or  oral  law — second  law, 
collected  by  Eabbi  Judah  Haqqodcsh,  i.  e.,  the  Holy, 
about  A.  D.  220.  From  this  work,  which  contains 
such  an  almost  infinite  number  of  Jewish  superstitions, 
usages,  and  rites,  I  have  as  yet  seen  but  one  passage 
produced  which  seems  to  have  any  direct  bearing  upon 
our  question.     It  runs  thus  : 


CHRISTIAN"   BAPTISM.  125 

j^ajatt  1*a  ffllisb  rtftfrn  "pa  wfiwi  tn^a  ibn  rrm  sfisS 
i.  e.,  as  to  a  proselyte,  who  becomes  a  proselyte  on  the 
evening  of  the  passover,  the  folloivers  of  Shctmmai  say, 
Let  him  be  baptized  (bmfc)  and  let  him  eat  the  passover 
in  the  evening;  but  the  disciples  of  HUM  say,  He  who 
separates  himself  from  the  prepuce  separates  himself  from 
a  sepulchre  ;  Tract.  Pesahhim,  c.  VIII.,  §  8. 

De  AVette,  in  commenting  on  this,  says,  that  Ssio 
is  here  equivalent  to  lavatus,  washed;  Opusc.  Theol. 
p.  62.  It  may  be  so ;  for  the  Heb.  Sao »  like  the 
Greek  iSdrrro)  and  ^arrri^io,  might  mean  to  wash,  to 
bathe,  etc.  But  inasmuch  as  this  word  is  not  employed 
in  any  part  of  the  Mosaic  institutes  in  respect  to  the 
ablutions  there  specified,  and  as  the  compiler  of  the 
Mishna  must  have  been  intimately  acquainted  with 
the  ritual  parts  of  these  institutes,  I  can  hardly  believe, 
on  the  whole,  that  the  word  S:no  has  such  a  meaning 
in  this  place.  It  more  probably  means  baptized,  im- 
mersed. 

Accordingly,  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  Tract.  Pesah.  ■ 
p.  36,  c.  2,  in  the  way  of  allusion  to  the  passage  of  the 
Mishna  just  quoted,  and  in  explanation  of  it,  Eabbi 
Eliezer,  the  son  of  Jacob,  is  represented  as  saying  that 
some  Eoman  soldiers,  who  kept  guard  at  Jerusalem, 
ate  of  the  passover,  being  baptized  (ibntoi)  on  the  evening 
of  the  passover.  De  Wette  (Opusc.  p.  63)  construes  this 
passage  in  the  same  way  as  he  does  that  of  the  Mishna 
above  recited.  But  Bauer  allows  it  to  be  a  case  of  pros- 
elyte-baptism ;  Gottensdienst.  Verfassung,  II.,  p.  389. 

The  Jerusalem  Talmud,  it  will  be  remembered,  was 


126  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

I 

composed  during  the  latter  part  of  the  third  century, 
some  fifty  or  sixty  years  (the  time  is  not  exactly 
known)  after  the  Mishna  was  reduced  to  writing.  I 
cannot  resist  the  impression,  therefore,  that  the  custom 
of  baptizing  proselytes  before  they  were  admitted  to 
the  passover,  was  at  least  distinctly  known  among  the 
Jews  of  the  third  century.  Indeed,  it  is  difficult  to 
see  how  we  can  avoid  the  conclusion  that  such  a  cus- 
tom was  older  than  the  third  century.  The  Mishna, 
certainly,  for  the  most  part,  only  reduces  to  writing 
what  was  before  extant  in  traditions  orally  preserved. 
It  is  probable,  then,  that  the  custom,  in  a  greater  or 
less  extent,  of  baptizing  proselytes,  must  have  existed 
in  the  second  century,  and  possibly  still  earlier. 

Let  it  be  noted,  however,  that  the  very  passage  in 
the  Mishna  quoted  above,  shows  that  the  ancient  Jews 
were  not  agreed  in  relation  to  the  effect  produced  by 
baptizing  proselytes  before  their  admission  to  the  pass- 
over  ;  in  other  words,  they  were  not  agreed  as  to  its 
being  a  sufficient  initiatory  rite,  even  when  circumcision 
accompanied  it.  The  disciples  of  Shammai  affirm,  that 
when  a  circumcised  proselyte  is  baptized  he  ought  to 
be  admitted  to  the  passover  ;  but  those  of  Hillel  main- 
tain, that  circumcision,  when  recent,  is  not  a  sufficient 
expurgation,  not  even  when  baptism  follows  it ;  for 
such  seems  plainly  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  words,  he 
who  separates  himself  from  the  prepuce  separates  himself 
from  a'sejndcJire ;  i.  e.,  he  has  need  still  of  such  repeated 
lustrations  as  one  must  practise  who  has  been  polluted 
by  a  dead  body  in  the  grave. 

According  to  Jewish  tradition,  Hillel  and  Shammai 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  127 

lived  in  the  time  of  Augustus  Ca?sar  and  Herod  the 
Great — i.  e.,  they  flourished  about  forty  years  before 
the  birth  of  Christ.  They  were  the  heads  of  two  sects 
among  the  Pharisees,  and  became  bitterly  opposed  to 
each  other  in  almost  every  thing  where  there  was  any 
room  for  difference  of  opinion.  But  Ilillel  appears  to 
have  acquired  a  great  ascendency  over  Shammai  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Rabbins.  In  the  Talmud  it  is  related 
of  him  (Succa,  fol.  28.  1),  that  "  Hillel  had  eighty  dis- 
ciples in  his  old  age,  of  whom  thirty  were  worthy  of 
the  presence  of  the  divine  Majesty  ;  thirty  others,  that 
the  sun  should  stop  in  its  course,  as  it  did  for  Joshua, 
the  son  of  Nun  ;  the  other  twenty  were  of  more  mod- 
erate capacity,  the  greatest  among  them  being  Jon- 
athan Ben  Uzziel  [the  famous  Chaldee  Paraphrast], 
and  the  least,  Eabbi  Jochanan  ben  Zacchai"  [a  cele- 
brated Rabbin].  I  insert  this  merely  to  show  what 
views  the  Jews  entertained  of  Hillel,  while  little  is  said 
in  the  way  of  boasting  with  respect  to  Shammai. 

I  do  not  take  it  for  granted,  however,  that  Hillel  and 
Shammai  did  themselves  agitate  the  disputed  question 
about  baptism.  Doubtless,  many  subjects  of  dispute 
originated  among  their  followers,  and  this  may  have 
been  the  case  in  regard  to  the  question  about  proselyte 
baptism,  for  the  words  of  the  Mishna  would  not  disagree 
at  all  with  such  an  exposition.  I  understand  the  Mish- 
nical  author  as  meaning  to  say,  that  the  two  famous 
sects  of  Hillel  and  Shammai  disputed  on  the  subject  of 
baptizing  proselytes  at  the  time  when  he  was  writing. 
Of  how  long  standing  this  dispute  had  been,  I  do  not 
see  that  we  can  gather  from  the  words  of  the  Mishna. 


128  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

The  authority  of  the  more  dominant  party,  then,  at 
the  time  when  the  Mishna  was  written,  decided  that 
baptism  was  not  a  complete  initiatory  rite,  even  after 
circumcision.  But  the  opinion  of  the  party  adverse  to 
them  appears,  at  last,  to  have  "become  the  prevailing 
one,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  sequel. 

It  would  seem  to  follow,  from  what  has  now  been 
laid  before  the  reader,  that  the  practice  of  baptizing 
proselytes  was  at  least  known  among  the  Jews  in  the 
second  century,  or,  if  we  are  to  credit  the  testimony  of 
the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  still  earlier.  But,  inasmuch  as 
the  evidence  before  us  may  appear,  perhaps,  to  leave 
this  matter  somewhat  in  doubt,  we  may  now  very  nat- 
urally ask,  Is  there  any  other  source  of  evidence  to 
which  we  can  appeal  ?  What  have  Philo,  and  Josephus, 
and  the  Targums  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan,  said  or 
hinted  relative  to  the  baptism  of  proselytes  ? 

The  answer  to  this  question,  so  important  to  our 
present  purpose,  is,  Nothing—at  least  nothing  which 
serves  at  all  to  confirm  the  idea  that  the  practice  in 
question  was  extant,  or  at  any  rate  notorious,  at  the 
time  when  these  authors  composed  their  works.  All 
of  them  lived  not  far  from  the  commencement  of  the 
Christian  era — Philo  somewhat  before,  Josephus  some- 
what after,  and  Onkelos  and  Jonathan  about  the  same 
periods.  I  know  the  age  of  these  two  Chaldee  trans- 
lators has  been  questioned,  and  set  down  to  a  period 
much  later,  by  Eichhorn  and  some  others ;  but  it  is 
now  generally  admitted  that  they  may  fairly  be  ranked 
among  writers  who  lived  at,  or  very  near,  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Christian  era. 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  129 

In  all  these  writers,  so  far  as  their  works  have  yet 
been  examined,  there  appears  to  be  a  deep  and  uni- 
versal silence  on  the  subject  of  baptizing  proselytes — 
a  thing  quite  unaccountable  in  case  such  baptism  were 
usual  at  that  period.  Nay,  there  is  one  passage  in 
Josephus  which  seems  to  afford  strong  ground  of  sus- 
pision  that  the  rite  in  question  was  unknown  at  a 
period  not  long  antecedent  to  the  time  of  the  apostles. 
This  author  is  relating  the  history  of  John  Hyrcanus, 
high-priest  and  king  of  the  Jews,  a  zealous  Pharisee, 
and  one  who,  according  to  Josephus,  was  favoured  with 
divine  revelations.  He  says  that  Hyrcanus  (about  126 
A.  C.)  took  certain  cities  from  the  Idumseans  ;  "  and 
he  commanded,  after  subduing  all  the  Idumasans,  that 
they  should  remain  in  their  country  if  they  would  cir- 
cumcise themselves,  and  conform  to  the  Jewish  cus- 
toms. Then  they,  through  love  of  their  country,  un- 
derwent circumcision,  and  submitted  to  the  other  modes 
of  living  which  were  Jewish,  and  from  that  time  they 
became  Jews."     Ant.  XIII.  9.  1,  ib.  15.  4. 

Now,  as  Hyrcanus  was  a  most  zealous  Pharisee,  and 
as  the  Pharisees,  in  all  probability,  first  began  the 
practice  of  baptizing  proselytes,  it  would  seem  quite 
strange  that  nothing  should  be  done  on  this  occasion 
with  respect  to  the  baptism  of  a  whole  nation,  or,  at 
least,  that  nothing  should  be  said  by  Josephus  respect- 
ing it,  in  case  he  regarded  it  as  essential  to  the  recep- 
tion of  foreigners  among  his  own  people.  I  am  aware 
that  we  cannot  always  argue  from  the  silence  of  wri- 
ters, against  the  existence  of  this  or  that  practice  ;  but 
this  would  seem  to  be  one  of  the  cases  in  which  silence 
6* 


130  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

speaks  strongly  against  the  probability  of  the  practice 
in  question  at  that  period. 

We  add,  moreover,  to  what  has  now  been  exhibited, 
that  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the 
Jew,  has  let  fall  no  expression  from  which  any  thing 
can  be  deduced,  in  regard  to  the  practice,  by  the  Jews, 
of  the  rite  under  consideration. 

We  come  now  to  later  testimonies,  and  such  as  cannot 
be  of  any  great  weight  in  determining  the  question  rel- 
ative to  the  antiquity  of  proselyte  baptism.  I  shall 
therefore  relate  them  in  as  succinct  a  manner  as  is  con- 
sistent with  perspicuity. 

In  the  Babylonish  Talmud,  Cod.  Jevamoth,  fol.  46, 
the  following  passage  occurs :  "  As  to  a  proselyte,  who 
is  circumcised,  but  not  baptized,  what  of  him  ?  Rabbi 
Eliezersays:  'Behold,  he  is  a  proselyte;  for  thus  we 
find  it  concerning  our  fathers,  that  they  were  circum- 
cised, but  not  baptized.'  But  as  to  one  who  is  baptized, 
and  is  not  circumcised,  what  of  him  ?  Rabbi  Joshua 
says  :  '  Behold,  he  is  a  proselyte  ;  for  thus  we  find  it 
respecting  maid-servants,  who  were  baptized,  but  not 
circumcised.'  But  the  Wise  Men  say  :  '  Is  he  baptized, 
but  not  circumcised ;  or  is  he  circumcised,  but  not  bap- 
tized ;  he  is  not  a  proselyte  until  he  is  circumcised  and 
baptized.' " 

I  translate  from  Lightfoot,  Hor.  Ileb.  p.  266.  The 
Talmud  of  Babylon  is  a  work  of  a  late  period,  being  a 
compilation  made  by  the  Babylonish  Jews,  during  the 
fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  centuries.  Here,  then,  is  a 
narration  which  respects  the  opinion  of  Eliezer  the  son 
of  Ilyrcanus,  and  Joshua  the  son  of  Ilananiah,  who  are 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  131 

said  to  have  lived  near  the  time  when  the  temple  was 
destroyed.  Not  improbably,  then,  this  dispute  was  like 
to  that  mentioned  in  the  Mishna,  on  which  I  have  al- 
ready commented. 

Setting  aside  now  the  great  uncertainty  which  at- 
tends almost  all  ancient  chronological  matters  in  the 
Talmud,  and  supposing  the  two  Eabbins  here  mentioned 
to  have  lived  at  or  near  the  time  when  the  temple  was 
destroyed,  it  would  follow  only,  that  about  this  time 
the  practice  of  baptizing  proselytes  was  in  existence, 
but  was  a  matter  of  dispute  and  difference  of  opinion  ; 
which  in  this  respect  accords  with  the  tenor  of  the  pas- 
sage already  quoted  from  the  Mishna.  The  Wise  Men, 
to  whom  the  Talmud  appeals,  seem  plainly  to  be  the 
later  Rabbins,  and  probably  those  who  lived  at  the  pe- 
riod when  the  passages  were  written,  which  we  are  now 
examining. 

A  few  other  citations  only,  from  the  same  Talmud, 
will  be  necessary ;  as  all  which  can  be  required  is,  that 
confirmation  should  be  given  to  the  idea,  that  the  au- 
thors of  the  Talmud  in  question  were  familiarly  ac- 
quainted with  proselyte  baptism. 

Wetstein  has  collected  a  larger  mass  of  these  testi- 
monies than  I  have  elsewhere  found,  except  in  Danz ; 
and  in  him  they  are  much  less  select,  and  often  little 
or  nothing  to  the  purpose.  From  those  of  Wetstein,  I 
select  the  following,  as  being  abundantly  sufficient  for 
my  purpose. 

In  his  Nov.  Test,  ad  Matt.  3  :  6,  they  stand  thus  : 
Talm.  Babylon.  Tract.  Ketabhoth,  fol.  11.  1,  Rabbi 
Hanina  said:  Let  them  hajptize  a  little  child  who  is  a 


132  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

proselyte,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  Elders." 
Tract.  Jebamoth,  Talmud  Hierosol.  fol.  8.  4,  "  Eabbi 
Hezekiah  said :  Behold,  he  finds  an  infant  cast  away, 
and  baptizes  it  in  the  name  of  a  servant."  But  this  case 
is  somewhat  uncertain,  as  the  baptism  may  not  have 
been  altogether  of  a  religious  nature.  Talmud.  Hieros. 
Berakhoth,  fol.  6.  3,  "  In  the  days  of  Eabbi  Joshua, 
the  son  of  Levi,  they  endeavoured  to  root  out  this  im- 
mersion (baptism),  for  the  sake  of  the  women  of  Galilee, 
eo  quod  illse  prse  frigore  sterilescerent."  Talm.  Bab. 
Cherithuth  fol  9.  lf  "  Eab  says  :  How  was  it  that  the 
fathers  did.  not  enter  into  the  covenant,  except  by  cir- 
cumcision, baptism,  and  the  sprinkling  of  blood  ?"  Ibid, 
in  Avoda  Sara,  fol.  57. 1,  "  Eabbi  Simi,  the  son  of  Chaia 
[says]  :  He  who  provides  for  himself  Gentile  servants, 
who  are  circumcised,  but  not  baptized ;  or  the  sons  of 
female  servants,  who  are  circumcised,  but  not  baptized ; 
sputum  et  vestigium  coram  in  platea  est  immundum. 
.  .  .  Proselytes  do  not  enter  into  the' covenant  except  by 
these  three  things,  circumcision,  baptism,  and  peace- 
offering.  Ibid.  fol.  59.  5,  et  Jebamoth  46.  1,  "  Eabbi 
Jochanan :  Never  shall  any  one  be  deemed  a  proselyte, 
until  he  is  baptized  as  well  as  circumcised ;  for  before 
he  is  baptized  he  is  regarded  as  a  foreigner."  Jebamoth 
fol.  46.  2,  "  Eabbi  Joseph  says  :  If  any  one  comes  say- 
ing, I  am  circumcised,  but  not  baptized,  let  them  see 
that  he  is  baptized.  Eabbi  Judah  says  :  Baptism  is 
the  principal  thing." 

These,  and  seyeral  others  of  the  same  tenor,  not  only 
from  the  Talmud,  but  from  other  Eabbinical  works,  such 
as  Bereshith  Eabba,  etc.,  the  reader  will  find  in  a  Latin 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  133 

translation  in  Wetstein,  as  above  cited ;  lie  will  also 
find  some  of  them,  and  many  others,  usually  accom- 
panied by  the  original  Hebrew  and  Chaldee,  in  the 
work  of  Danz  before  alluded  to,  and  contained  in  Meu- 
chen's  Nov.  Test,  ex  Tdmude  illustratum. 

I  have  not  thought  it  of  sufficient  importance  to  tran- 
scribe the  originals  here ;  for  the  amount  of  all  the  tes- 
timonies from  the  Talmud,  especially  the  Babylonish 
Talmud,  and  the  other  works  of  the  Eabbins,  can  be 
but  of  small  importance,  in  determining  the  question 
concerning  the  antiquity  of  proselyte  baptism.  I  con- 
cede the  point  most  fully  and  freely  to  all  who  may 
desire  it,  that  after  the  third  century,  if  not  sooner,  this 
baptism  began  to  be  very  general  among  the  Jews ; 
and  has  been  so  ever  since.  Danz  has  given  evidence 
enough  of  this,  in  his  chaotic  mass  of  quotations ;  and 
so  have  Lightfoot,  Selden,  Wetstein,  and  many  others. 

But  Wetstein  has  quoted  one  passage  from  the 
Mishna,  which,  if  correct,  may  be  thought  to  be  of  im- 
portance to  our  subject ;  inasmuch  as  the  Mishna  is  the 
earliest  of  the  Eabbinical  writings  on  which  we  can 
place  any  dependence.  Wetstein  (Nov.  Test.  I.  p.  260) 
quotes  thus  :  "Semachotk,  Mishna  vii.  Si  non  vult  fieri 
proselyta ;  sed  si  vult  proselyta  fieri,  baptized  earn,  et 
libertatem  illi  donat,  et  statim  est  licita."  I  have  look- 
ed in  vain  for  this  passage  in  the  Mishna ;  for  there  is 
not  such  a  title  to  any  of  its  treatises  as  Wetstein  here 
names.  I  do  not  deny  that  the  passage  exists  in  the 
Mishna ;  but  if  it  does,  it  must  be  found  in  some  other 
way  than  through  the  medium  of  Wetstein.  Even  if 
it  exists  there,  it  would  be  difficult  to  show,  that  by 


134  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

the  baptism  in  question,  is  meant  a  proselyte  baptism 
of  initiation. 

The  reader  has  before  him  the  substance  of  the  testi- 
mony in  respect  to  the  antiquity  of  the  baptism  of  pros- 
elytes, so  far  as  it  has  been  developed  from  Rabbinic 
sources.  Appeals,  however,  have  been  made  to  two 
passages  in  heathen  writers,  of  which  some  notice  must 
here  be  taken. 

Tacitus,  who  died  about  A.  D.  100,  speaking  of  cer- 
tain persons  (Hist.  Y.  5),  says  :  "  Transgressi  in  morem 
Judaeorum,  idem  usurpant,  nee  quidquam  prius  imbu- 
untur,  quam  contemnere  deos,  exuere  patriam,"  etc.  i.  e., 
Going  over  to  the  Jewish  manner  of  life,  they  practise  the 
same  thing  ;  nor  are  they  IMBUED  with  any  thing  sooner 
than  to  despise  the  gods,  to  renounce  their  country,  etc. 
Or  this  last  phrase  may  be  thus  translated:  Nor  are 
they  imbued,  before  they  despise  the  gods,  renounce  their 
country,  etc.  In  the  preceding  sentence,  Tacitus  speaks 
of  circumcision  as  practiced  by  the  Jews,  that  they  may 
be  distinguished  from  others.  Hence,  Trangressi  in- 
morem  Judaeorum,  idem  usurpaiit,  must  mean,  that 
those  who  become  proselytes  to  Judaism,  do  the  same 
thing,  viz.,  practise  circumcision ;  and  by  this  they  be- 
come Jews.  What  follows  seems  to  me  plainly  to  re- 
late to  the  doctrines  or  principles  with  which  they  are 
imbued,  and  not  to  the  baptism  which  may  be  prac- 
tised. 

The  passage  in  the  Epictetus  of  Arrian  (who  flour- 
ished in  the  first  part  of  the  second  century),  Lib.  II.  c. 
9,  is  still  more  obscure.  It  runs  thus :  "  Why  dost 
thou  call  thyself  a  Stoic  ?     Why  dost  thou  deceive  the 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  135 

multitude  ?  Why  dost  thou,  being  a  Jew,  play  the 
hypocrite  with  the  Greek  ?  Dost  thou  not  see  how  any 
one  is  called  a  Jew,  how  a  Syrian,  how  an  Egyptian  ? 
And  when  we  see  any  one  acting  with  both  parties,  we 
are  wont  to  say  :  He  is  no  Jew,  but  he  plays  the  hypo- 
crite.  But  when  dvaXdfin  to  irddog  tov  j3e[3a[iiJ,tvov  aal 
hpr\\ievov,  he  takes  on  him  the  state  and  feelings  (nddoc)  of 
one  who  is  WASHED  or  baptized  (f3ej3afip:evov)  and  has 
attached  himself  to  the  sect,  then  he  is  in  truth,  and  is 
called,  a  Jew.  But  we  are  -napa^aix-iarai-  transgressors 
as  to  our  baptism,  or  falsely  baptized,  if  we  are  like  a 
Jew  in  pretence,  and  something  else  in  reality,"  etc. 
A  great  variety  of  opinions  have  been  given  on  this 
passage.  Some  think  that  Arrian  here  refers  to  Chris- 
tians ;  but  I  see  no  good  ground  for  such  a  supposition. 
De  Wette  says,  Opusc.  p.  64,  that  "  the  passage  is  too 
obscure  to  collect  any  thing  certain  from  it."  One 
thing,  however,  seems  to  me  certain  ;  viz.,  that  the  pas- 
sage does  not  refer  simply  to  a  Gentile  proselyte  be- 
coming a  Jew,  but  marks  what  the  Jew  was  accustom- 
ed to  practise.  I  can  scarcely  doubt,  that  the  writer 
refers  to  the  Jewish  ablutions,  so  often  demanded  by 
the  ritual  law,  and  so  often  practised  by  the  Hebrews. 
It  is  more  difficult  to  make  out  the  meaning  of  vpr)[ievov: 
which  is  coupled  with  (3ej3a[ifj,evov.  The  Middle  voice 
of  alpeoj  means  to  choose,  to  prefer;  and  as  vpv^vov  is 
both  of  the  Passive  and  Middle  form,  it  may  have  here 
an  Active  sense,  and  may  mean,  as  I  have  translated 
it,  attached  himself  to  a  sect,  i.  e.,  become  one  of  the  aipeaig 
or  sect.  Paulus,  Comm.  I.  p.  283,  has  endeavoured  to 
explain  away  the  force  of  the  whole  passage  ;  and  Dc 


136  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

"Wette  has  followed  in  his  steps,  as  is  stated  above. 
Bauer  (Gottesdienstl.  Verfassung,  II.  p.  390)  has  treated 
this  question  more  fairly ;  but  he  suggests,  that  /3e/3a//- 
\levov  may  probably  refer  to  a  Christian,  whom  Arrian 
confounds  with  a  Jew,  as  early  heathen  writers  were 
wont  to  do.  The  context  does  not  seem  to  allow  of 
this  construction.  On  the  whole,  I  concede  this  to  be 
a  difficult  and  obscure  passage,  in  some  respects.  The 
rb  Ttadog  rov  (3e(3ajj.fievov  ical  qprjfievov,  is  certainly  a  pe- 
culiar Greek  phrase ;  yet,  if  we  construe  it  in  whatever 
way  is  fairly  possible,  I  think  Ave  cannot  make  out 
from  it  any  degree  of  certainty,  that  Pepafifievov  refers 
to  proselyte  baptism. 

Another  passage,  found  in  Josephus,  has  also  been 
appealed  to,  which  states  the  custom  of  the  Essenes  in 
regard  to#  the  reception  of  proselytes  among  them  ;  Bel. 
Jud.  11.  8.  7,  or  p.  786  of  the  Cologne  edition.  It  runs 
thus  :  "  To  those  who  are  desirous  of  joining  their  sect, 
immediate  access  is  not  afforded  ;  but  they  prescribe  to 
each  their  own  peculiar  manner  of  living  for  one  year 
while  he  remains  without  .  .  .  And  when  he  has  given 
proof  of  his  temperance  for  such  a  time,  he  secures  ad- 
mission to  their  meals,  itai  tcadapurspov  tiov  npoc  dyveiav 
vdaToiv  nETaXafifidvei,  and  is  made  partaker  of  those 
purer  waters  which  are  designed  for  purification  ;"  i.  e., 
he  is  washed  with  water  before  he  sits  down  at  the  table 
with  them.  But  so  were  the  Essenes  themselves,  as  is 
stated  in  another  and  preceding  part  of  the  same  chapter 
in  Josephus.  His  words  are :  "  Labouring  strenuously 
[at  their  usual  occupation]  until  the  fifth  hour,  they 
then  assemble  together  in  one  place,  and  girding  them- 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  137 

selves  with  linen  towels,  they  wash  the  body  in  cold  wa- 
ter ;  and  after  this  purification,  they  enter  each  his  own 
house,  ....  and  being  purified,  they  assemble  at  the 
supper-hall,  as  a  kind  of  sacred  temple."  Bell.  Jud.  II. 
7.  or  8.  5.  Nothing  more,  then,  was  required  of  the 
converts  to  Essenism  than  was  demanded  of  those  who 
already  belonged  to  this  sect.  Nor,  indeed,  is  it  at 
all  correct  to  assume  that  the  bathing  specified  above 
was  a  token  of  admission  in  full  to  the  communion  of 
theEssenes;  for,  as  the  context  tells  us,  "he  [the  new 
convert]  is  not  yet  received  into  their  society  (ov/i- 
fliuoeig),  for  after  exhibiting  his  power  of  self-restraint 
[for  one  year],  his  moral  behaviour  is  put  to  the  test 
for  two  years  more."  Ibid.  The  initiatory  rite  of  bap- 
tism, then,  as  practised  by  John  the  Baptist,  or  by  the 
disciples  of  Christ,  does  not  seem  to  be  deduced  from 
the  practice  of  the  Essenes.  The  ablutions  of  the  Jews 
in  general  were  quite  as  obvious  a  source  of  this  rite  as 
the  custom  of  that  sect. 

Thus  much  for  Babbinic  and  other  external  testi- 
mony in  regard  to  the  antiquity  of  the  baptismal  rite 
among  the  Jews.  Nothing  from  the  heathen  writers 
or  Josephus  seems  in  any  degree  to  confirm  this  an- 
tiquity. From  the  Babbinic  writers  all  that  we  can 
gather  is,  that  sometime  in  the  latter  part  of  the  third 
century,  when  the  Jerusalem  Talmud  was  written,  the 
custom  of  baptizing  proselytes  was  common ;  still  more 
so  did  it  become  during  the  times  when  the  Babylonian 
Talmud  was  written,  i.  e.,  from  the  commencement  of 
the  fifth  century  onward,  some  two  hundred  or  more 
years.     I  must  except,  however,  the  testimony  of  the 


138  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

Mishna  from  the  above  remarks.  This  has  been  made 
light  of  by  some,  or  explained  away  by  rendering  iaia 
washed,  chansed ;  but  I  cannot  help  the  feeling,  that 
impartiality  in  weighing  testimony  forbids  this. 

On  the  whole  we  must  admit,  that,  independently  of 
the  Scriptures,  we  have  evidence  which  ought  to  satisfy 
us,  that  at  the  commencement  of  the  third  century  the 
custom  of  proselyte  baptism  was  known  and  practised 
among  the  Jews ;  and  if  the  case  of  the  Roman  soldiers, 
related  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud  in  Cod.  Pesachim,  fol. 
36.  b.,  as  stated  above,  be  truly  represented,  then,  even 
while  the  temple  was  standing,  proselyte  baptism  must 
have  been  practised.  But  some  degree  of  uncertainty  al- 
ways hangs  over  Talmudic  stories.  There  are  so  many 
narrations  in  the  Talmud  which  are  gross  mistakes  and 
ridiculous  conceits,  that  one  hardly  feels  himself  safe 
in  trusting  to  any  of  its  statements  respecting  facts  that 
happened  long  before  the  period  when  this  book  was 
written.  We  may,  however,  venture  to  believe,  I  think 
safely,  that  we  have  sufficient  evidence  of  the  fact,  that 
such  baptism  was  practised  at,  or  not  long  after,  the  time 
lohen  the  second  temple  was  destroyed. 

But  we  shall  be  reminded  here  that  many  writers 
have  considered  the  Bible  itself  as  determining  our 
question — yea,  determining  that  not  only  proselytes 
from  the  heathen  were  admitted  by  baptism  to  the 
Jewish  communion,  but  that  the  whole  congregation  of 
Israel,  at  Mount  Sinai,  were  admitted  into  covenant  with 
God  by  virtue  of  the  same  rite.  Such  writers  appeal 
to  Ex.  19  :  10,  scp  But  this  shows  only  that  the  people 
were  to  wash  their  clothes,  a  thins  which  the  whole  ritual 


CIIMSTIAN    BAPTISM.  139 

of  Moses  plainly  distinguishes  from  washing  or  bap- 
tizing the  body,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  account  of  the 
ritual  ablution  given  above,  p.  80G,  sq.  They  appeal 
also  to  Ps.  114  :  1,  2  ;  Ezek.  16  :  9 ;  20  :  12  ;  1  Cor. 
10  :  2,  as  serving  to  confirm  the  idea  that  the  Jews 
were  admitted  to  the  covenant  by  baptism.  But  I  am 
unable  to  discern  in  these  passages  of  Scripture  the 
traces  of  an  argument  which  can  establish  this. 

An  appeal  of  a  more  specious  nature  is  made  to  the 
narration  in  John  1  :  19-28.  The  messengers  of  the 
Pharisees,  who  were  sent  to  make  inquiries  of  John  the 
Baptist,  asked  him,  "  Why  baptizest  thou,  then,  if  thou 
be  not  that  Christ,  nor  Elias,  neither  that  prophet  ?" 
These  two  latter  individuals  their  traditionary  inter- 
pretation of  the  Scriptures  had  connected  with  the 
coming  of  the  Messiah.  The  manner  of  the  question 
does  obviously  seem  to  imply  that  they  expected,  of 
course,  the  Messiah  himself  and  his  two  coadjutors, 
Elijah  and  the  prophet,  to  baptize  those  whom  they 
should  receive  as  disciples.  But  does  this  imply  that 
proselyte  baptism  was  already  in  use  ?  So  it  has  been 
thought  and  said.  Yet  I  cannot  see  how  this  follows 
of  necessity.  Nay,  I  must  even  say  that  the  necessary 
implication  seems  directly  the  contrary.  What  was  the 
initiatory  rite  which  they  expected  under  a  dispensa- 
tion that,  even  in  their  own  view,  was  to  be  new,  and 
very  different  in  many  respects  from  the  former  one  ? 
Was  it  to  be  a  new  rite,  a  distinctive  sign,  or  was  it  to 
be  merely  the  continuation  of  an  old  practice  already  in 
common  usage  ?  The  former  surely  seems  to  be  the 
most  natural  and  probable.    Indeed,  the  manner  of  the 


140  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

question  put  to  John  absolutely  forbids  the  idea  that 
those  who  put  it  considered  baptism  as  a  rite  in  com- 
mon use.  The  necessary  implication  is,  that  unless 
John  were  either  the  Messiah,  or  Elijah,  or  the  prophet, 
he  could  have  no  right  to  baptize.  How  could  this  be 
said  with  any  good  degree  of  force  or  congruity  in 
case  the  same  kind  of  baptism  which  John  practised 
was  a  matter  of  common  usage  ?  An  appeal  to  this 
text,  then,  serves  rather  to  confirm  the  opinion  oppo- 
site to  that  for  the  support  of  which  the  appeal  is  made. 

In  fine,  we  are  destitute  of  any  early  testimony  to 
the  practice  of  proselyte  baptism  antecedently  to  the 
Christian  era.  The  original  institution  of  admitting 
Jews  to  the  covenant,  and  strangers  to  the  same,  pre- 
scribed no  other  rite  than  that  of  circumcision.  No  ac- 
count of  any  other  is  found  in  the  Old  Testament; 
none  in  the  Apocrypha,  New  Testament,  Targums  of 
Onkelos,  Jonathan,  Joseph  the  Blind,  or  in  the  work 
of  any  other  Targumist,  excepting  Pseudo-Jonathan, 
whose  work  belongs  to  the  7th  or  8th  century.  No 
evidence  is  found  in  Philo,  Josephus,  or  any  of  the 
earlier  Christian  writers.  How  could  an  allusion  to 
such  a  rite  have  escaped  them  all  if  it  were  as  common 
and  as  much  required  by  usage  as  circumcision  ? 

The  baptism  of  John  and  of  Jesus,  then,  I  must  re- 
gard as  being  a  special  appointment  of  Heaven.  So 
the  intimation  seems  to  be  in  John  1  :  33  ;  Luke  3  :  2, 
3  ;  7  :  30 ;  and  especially  in  Matt.  21  :  24-27.  In  this 
latter  passage,  Jesus  evidently  means  to  imply  that  the 
baptism  of  John  was  from  heaven;  and  so  the  Jewish 
people  regarded  it,  v.  26. 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM,  141 

That  we  cannot  point  out  the  exact  time  when  pros- 
elyte baptism  began  among  the  Jews,  is  little  to  the 
purpose  of  those  who  hold  to  its  great  antiquity ;  for 
where  are  the  monuments  which  show  how  and  when 
many  a  rite  began  which  came  into  general  reception 
in  the  churches  of  Christ  in  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth 
centuries  ?  Nor  can  I  think,  with,  many  writers,  that 
there  is  any  thing  mysterious  in  respect  to  the  adoption 
of  such  a  rite  by  the  Jewish  churches.  How  obvious 
the  idea  that  a  heathen  man  who  came  over  to  the  Jew- 
ish churches  was  unclean  in  his  heathen  state  !  And 
what  could  be  more  natural  than  to  require  ablution  of 
him,  especially  when  the  days  of  Pharisaic  superstition 
were  fully  come  ?  The  Eabbins  tell  us  that  circum- 
cision, baptism,  and  oblation,  were  all  necessary  to  his 
initiation.  How,  then,  could  the  baptism  of  John  or 
Jesus,  which  was  the  sole  initiatory  rite,  be  derived 
from  the  proselyte  baptism  of  the  Jews  ? 

Besides  all  this,  when  a  proselyte  was  once  baptized 
and  received,  this  rite  was  at  an  end.  His  children 
born  after  his  reception  were  no  more  required  to  be 
baptized  than  those  of  the  native  Jews.  "What  paral- 
lel, then,  can  be  drawn  between  Christian  and  prose- 
lyte baptism  ? 

Dr.  Owen  expresses  his  opinion  that  the  Eabbins  in- 
troduced proselyte  baptism  in  imitation  of  the  popular 
baptism  of  John ;  Theologium.  Lib.  Y.  Digr.  4.  So 
thinks  Carpzov,  also,  in  his  Apparat.  Criticus,  p.  48. 
Improbable,  I  think,  this  cannot  be  called,  and  par- 
ticularly in  connection  with  the  many  ceremonial  ablu- 
tions of  the  Jews,  it  cannot  be  so  deemed. 


142  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

That  the  Jews  of  our  Saviour's  time  entertained  the 
idea  that  he  would  baptize  his  disciples,  may  be  well 
accounted  for  without  resorting  to  the  supposition  that 
proselyte  baptism  was  already  practised.  Let  the  reader 
consult  Isa.  12  :  3 ;  44 :  3  ;  Ezek.  36  :  25  ;  Zech.  13  : 1, 
and  he  will  easily  see  how  the  Jews  might  have  formed 
an  opinion  that  the  Messiah  would  baptize  his  disci* 
pies.  But  be  this  at  it  may,  or  be  the  origin  of  prose- 
lyte baptism  as  it  may,  I  cannot  see  that  there  is  any 
adequate  evidence  for  believing  that  it  existed  contem- 
porarily with  the  baptism  of  John  and  of  Jesus. 

But  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  the  question,  What 
was  the  ancient  mode  of  Christian  baptism  ?  Much ; 
for  it  is  on  all  hands  conceded,  that  so  far  as  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Eabbins  can  decide  such  a  point,  the  bap- 
tism of  proselytes  among  the  Jews  was  by  immersion. 
To  cite  authorities  to  this  purpose  is  needless.  They 
may  be  seen  in  Lightfoot,  Hor.  Heb.  p.  269  ;  in  Danz 
(Meuschen  Nov.  Test,  etc.),  p.  283,  and  elsewhere.  It 
is,  therefore,  a  matter  of  no  little  interest,  so  far  as  our 
question  is  concerned,  to  inquire  whether  Christian  bap- 
tism had  its  origin  from  the  proselyte  baptism  of  the 
Jews.  This  we  have  now  done,  and  have  come  to  this 
result,  viz.,  that  there  is  no  certainty  that  such  teas  the 
a/sv,  but  that  the  probability,  on  the  ground  of  evidence,  is 
si  rung  against  it. 

§  8.  Mode  of  Baptism  in  tin'  early  Christ  inn  Churches. 
IV.  We  come  now  to  inquire,  What  was  the  mode  of 
baptism  practised  hy  tin-  churches  in  the  early  ages  of 
Christianity,  and  AFTER  the  times  of  the  apostles  ? 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  143 

Here  we  may  anticipate  something  more  definite  and 
clear  than  we  have  yet  been  able  to  find,  and  conse- 
quently this  topic  of  inquiry  becomes  important  to  our 
purpose.  It  is  not  my  intention  here  to  make  a  very 
copious  selection  of  testimonies.  An  appropriate  num- 
ber, well  chosen  and  from  good  authorities,  will  satisfy 
the  reasonable  desires  of  every  intelligent  reader. 

In  the  writings  of  the  apostolic  fathers,  so  called,  i.  e., 
the  writers  of  the  first  century,  or,  at  least,  those  who 
lived  in  part  during  this  century,  scarcely  any  thing  of 
a  definite  nature  occurs  respecting  baptism,  either  in  a 
doctrinal  or  ritual  respect.  It  is,  indeed,  frequently 
alluded  to  ;  but  this  is  usually  in  a  general  way  only. 
We  can  easily  gather  from  these  allusions  that  the  rite 
was  practised  in  the  church ;  but  we  are  not  able  to 
determine,  with  precision,  either  the  manner  of  the  rite 
or  the  stress  that  was  laid  upon  it. 

In  the  Pastor  of  Hernias,  however,  occurs  one  pas- 
sage (Coteler.  Patr.  Apostol.  I.,  p.  119,  sq.),  which  runs 
as  follows :  "  But  this  seal  [of  the  sons  of  God]  is 
water,  in  quam  descendunt  homines  morti  obligati,  into 
which  men  descend  who  are  bound  to  death,  but  those 
ascend  who  are  destined  to  life.  To  them  that  seal  is 
disclosed,  and  they  make  use  of  it  that  they  may  enter 
the  kingdom  of  God." 

One  would  naturally  expect  something  definite  from 
Justin  Martyr.  But  in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the 
Jew  nothing  of  this  nature  occurs.  He  compares  bap- 
tism with  circumcision,  and  speaks  of  it  as  an  initiatory 
ceremony,  but  says  nothing  specific  concerning  the 
manner  of  the  rite.     In  his  Apology,  however  (Opp. 


144  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

Pat.  I.,  p.  210,  ed.  Obertliur),  a  passage  occurs  which 
deserves  our  attention.  Speaking  of  converts  to  Christ- 
ianity, or  those  who  become  believers,  he  says :  "  They 
are  led  out  by  us  to  the  place  where  there  is  water, .  .  .  and 
in  the  name  of  the  Father  of  the  universe,  the  Lord 
God,  and  of  the  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  to  vdari  Xovrpov  Troiovvrai,  they  wash  themselves 
ivith  water  .  .  .  rovrov  Xovoopsvov  dyovreg  elg  rb  Xovrpov, 
leading  him  who  is  to  be  washed  to  the  bath  or  washing 
place  ...  he  who  is  enlightened  Xoverai,  is  washed,  or 
washes  himself."  It  is  remarkable  here  that  the  verb 
Xovojiai  is  employed  throughout  this  passage,  which  is 
used  by  the  Greeks  to  designate  washing  the  body.  But 
this  may  be  done  by  bathing,  by  simple  ablution,  or  by 
immersion.  Immersion  may,  of  course,  be  washing, 
although  washing  is  not,  by  any  means,  always  the 
same  as  immersion.  The  greater  includes  the  less,  but 
the  less  does  not  include  the  greater.  I  am  persuaded 
that  this  passage,  as  a  whole,  most  naturally  refers  to 
immersion  ;  for  why,  on  any  other  ground,  should  the 
convert  who  is  to  be  initiated  go  out  .to  the  place  where 
there  is  water  1  There  could  be  no  need  of  this  if  mere 
sprinkling,  or  partial  affusion  only,  was  customary  in 
the  time  of  Justin. 

Tertullian,  who  died  in  A.  D.  220,  is  the  most  ample 
witness  of  all  the  early  writers.  In  his  works  is  an 
essay  in  defence  of  Christian  baptism,  which  had  been 
assailed  by  some  of  the  heretics  of  his  time.  Passing 
by  the  multitude  of  expressions  which  speak  of  the  im- 
portance of  being  cleansed  by  water,  being  born  in  the 
water,  etc.,  I  quote  only  such  as  are  directly  to  the  point. 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  145 

In  §  2  lie  speaks  of  a  baptized  person,  as  "  in  aquam  de- 
missus,  let  down  into  the  water,  i.  e.,  immersed,  and  inter 
pauca  verba  tinctus,  i.  e.,  dipped  between  the  utterance 
of  a  few  words  ;"  by  which  latter  expression  he  means 
the  repetition  of  the  baptismal  formula  by  the  priest 
while  he  was  performing  the  act.  « 

In  §  4  is  a  passage  which  seems  to  convey  a  still 
more  definite  sense.  He  is  speaking  of  the  original 
waters  at  the  time  of  the  creation  having  been  made  a 
sanctified  clement  by  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
upon  them,  from  which  he  goes  on  to  argue  the  sancti- 
fying influence  of  baptismal  water.  But  some  will  ob- 
ject, he  says,  that  "  we  are  not  dipped  (tinguimur)  in 
those  waters  which  were  at  the  beginning."  His  reply 
is,  that  all  water  is  a  species  of  that  genus,  and  that  the 
species  must  have  the  same  quality  with  the  genus. 
He  then  proceeds :  "There  is,  then,  no  difference 
whether  any  one  is  washed  in  a  pool,  river,  fountain, 
lake,  or  channel,  alveus,  (canal  ?)  nor  is  there  any  dif- 
ference of  consequence  between  those  whom  John  im- 
mersed (tinxit)  in  the  Jordan,  or  Peter  in  the  Tiber." 
Here,  then,  we  have,  in  a  very  clear  passage,  the  usual 
elements  named  in  which  baptism  was  performed.  It 
was  done  at  or  in  some  stream,  pool,  or  lake.  What 
other  good  reason  for  this  can  be  given,  excepting  that 
immersion  was  practised  ? 

In  §  6  he  says  :  "  Not  that  we  obtain  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  aquis  [i.  e.,  in  the  baptismal  water],  but  being  cleansed 
in  the  water  (in  aqua  emundati),  we  are  prepared  for 
the  Holy  Spirit,"  §  7.  "  Afterwards,  going  out  from 
the  ablution  or  bath  (lavacro),  we  are  anointed,"  etc. 


146  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

In  §  11  and  the  sequel,  he  very  often  makes  use  of 
the  Latin  word  lingo  in  order  to  express  the  Greek 
word  PaTrrifa.  In  §  16  he  speaks  of  those  who  had 
been  baptized,  as  being  those  qui  aqua  lavarentur,  who 
are  washed  with  water  ;  and  again,  qui  aqua  lavissent. 

In  his  Itook  against  Praxeas,  §  26,  sub  fine,  he  says : 
"  Not  once,  but  thrice,  according  to  the  several  names 
[Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost],  are  we  baptized  (tin- 
guimur)  into  the  several  persons."  The  reader  is  de- 
sired to  note  here,  and  in  other  passages  which  will  be 
cited  in  the  sequel,  that  the  practice  of  trine  immersion, 
i.  e.,  of  plunging  three  times  into  the  water,  in  cor- 
respondence with  the  names  of  the  Godhead  as  they 
occur  in  the  formula  of  baptism,  was  usual  at  so  early 
a  period  as  the  time  of  Tertullian  ;  how  much  earlier 
we  have  no  certain  testimony,  at  least  none  that  I  am 
acquainted  with.  Tertullian  himself,  however,  seems 
to  have  regarded  this  trim  immersion  as  something  su- 
peradded to  the  precepts  of  the  gospel ;  for  thus  he 
speaks  in  his  book  De  Corona  Militis,  §  3 :  "  Thence 
we  are  thrice  immersed  (ter  mergitamur),  answering, 
i.  e.,  fulfilling  somewhat  more  (amplius  aliquid  respon- 
dentes)  than  the  Lord  has  decreed  in  the  gospel." 

I  do  not  see  how  any  doubt  can  well  remain,  that  in 
Tertullian's  time  the  practice  of  the  African  church,  to 
say  the  least,  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  must  have 
been  that  of  trine  immersion. 

Subsequent  ages  make  the  general  practice  of  the 
church  still  plainer,  if,  indeed,  this  can  be  done.  The 
Greek  words  Karadvu  and  Karddvoig  were  employed  as 
expressive  of  baptizing  and  baptism,  and  these  words 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  147 

mean  going  down  into  the  water,  or  immerging.  So  in 
the  following  examples : 

Chrysostom,  Homil.  40  in  1  Cor.  i. :  "  To  be  bap- 
tized, and  to  submerge  (itaTadveodai),  then  to  emerge 
(dvaveveiv),  is  a  symbol  of  descent  to  the  grave,  and  of 
ascent  from  it."  Ambrose,  Lib.  II.  c.  7,  de  Sacramentis : 
"  You  were  asked,  Dost  thou  believe  in  God  Almighty  ? 
Thou  saidst,  I  believe;  and  thus  thou  wast  immerged 
(mersisti),  that  is,  thou  wast  buried."  Augustine, 
Homil.  IV.,  as  cited  by  Gratian  in  P.  III.  Decretor.  de 
Consecrat.  Distinct.  IV.  Can.  76,  "  After  you  professed 
your  belief,  three  times  did  we  submerge  (demersimus) 
your  heads  in  the  sacred  fountain."  Was  it  the  head 
only  ?  Or  did  he  mean  to  include  with  it  the  whole 
body  ?  Every  now  and  then  passages  of  this  nature 
occur,  which  lead  one  to  suspect  that  total  immersion 
was  not  uniform  in  the  early  church.  But  that  it  was 
usual,  seems  to  be  clearly  indicated  by  Dionysius  Areop. 
de  Eccles.  Hierarch.  c.  2,  "  Properly  t\  8C  vda<roc  6/Uk?) 
ndXvTptg,  the  total  covering  by  water,  is  taken  from  an 
image  of  death  and  burial  out  of  sight."  So  the  Coun- 
cil of  Toletan:  "  For  immersion  in  the  water  is  like  a 
descent  to  the  grave ;  and  again,  emersion  from  the 
water  (ab  aquis  emersio)  is  a  resurrection." 

The  passages  which  refer  to  immersion  are  so  nu- 
merous in  the  fathers,  that  it  would  take  a  little  volume 
merely  to  recite  them.  Let  the  reader  duly  weigh  the 
following  ones : 

Gregory  Nyssen,  De  Baptismo  Christi,  "  Coming  into 
water,  the  kindred  element  of  earth,  we  hide  ourselves 
in  it,  as  the  Saviour  did  in  the  earth :  and  doing  this 


148  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

three  times,"  etc.  Basil,  de  Spiritu,  c.  15,  "By  the 
three  immersions  (ev  rpcal  rale  Karadvoeoi),  and  by  the 
like  number  of  invocations,  the  great  mystery  of  bap- 
tism is  completed."  Damascenus,  Orthodox.  Fides  IV. 
10,  "Baptism  is  a  type  of  the  death  of  Christ ;  for  by 
three  immersions  (Karadvoeuv)  baptism  signifies,"  etc. 
So  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  (probably  written  in 
the  fourth  century),  Lib.  III.  c.  17,  "  Immersion  (tta- 
rddvoig)  denotes  dying  with  him  [Christ] ;  emersion 
(dvddvoig),  a  resurrection  with  Christ."  Photius  (apud 
Oecumenium)  on  Eom.  vi.,  "  The  three  immersions  and 
emersions  (Karadvoeig  teal  dvadvoeig)  of  baptism  signify 
death  and  resurrection."  Quest,  apud  Athanasium, 
Qu.  94,  "To  immerse  (Karadvoai)  a  child  three  times  hi 
the  bath  (or  pool),  and  to  emerse  him  (dvadvaai),  this 
shows  the  death,"  etc.  Chrysostom,  in  cap.  hi.  Johan- 
nis,  "  We,  as  in  a  sepulchre,  immersing  (KaradvovTuv) 
our  heads  in  water,  the  old  man  is  buried,  and  sinking 
down  (KaradvgKdro)),  the  whole  is  concealed  at  once ;  then 
as  we  emerge,  the  new  man  again  rises."  Cyril  of  Jeru- 
salem, Catech.  17,  "For  as  he  that  goes  down  into  the 
water  and  is  baptized,  is  surrounded  on  all  sides  with 
water,  so  the  apostles  were  baptized  all  over  by  the 
Spirit.  The  water  surrounds  the  body  externally,  but 
the  Spirit  incomprehensibly  baptizes  the  soul  within." 
Jerome,  Advers.  Lucif.  c.  4,  "  Many  other  things  which 
are  observed  in  churches  by  tradition,  have  usurped  to 
themselves  the  authority  of  the  written  law  [of  the 
Scriptures]  ;  such  as  in  lavacro  ter  caput  mergitare,  to 
immerse  the  head  three  times  in  the  bath.  Id.  Comm.  in 
Eph.  ivi,   "Three  times  are  we  immcrged,  that  the 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  149 

mystery,"  etc.  Augustine,  in  Decreto  Gratiani  deCon- 
secrat.  Distinc.  IV.  78,  "  Rightly  are  ye  immerged 
three  times,  who  have  received  baptism  in  jfche  name  of 
Christ,  ...  for  that  thrice  repeated  submersion  (demer- 
sio)  expresses  a  resemblance  of  the  Lord's  burial,"  etc. 

But  enough.  "It  is,"  says  Augusti  (Denkw.  VII., 
p.  216),  "  a  thing  made  out,"  viz.,  the  ancient  practice 
of  immersion.  So,  indeed,  all  the  writers  who  have 
thoroughly  investigated  this  subject  conclude.  I  know 
of  no  one  usage  of  ancient  times  which  seems  to  be 
more  clearly  made  out.  I  cannot  see  how  it  is  possible 
for  any  candid  man  who  examines  the  subject  to  deny 
this. 

That  there  were  cases  of  exception  allowed,  now  and 
then,  is,  no  doubt,  true.  Persons  in  extreme  sickness 
or  danger  were  allowed  baptism  by  affusion,  etc.  Cy- 
prian pleads  strongly  and  conclusively  for  this  in  his 
epistle  to  Magnus,  Ep.  76  (al  69).  The  Council  of 
Neo-Csesarea,  Euseb.  Lib.  VI.  c.  43 ;  and  so  the  Coun- 
cil of  Laodicea,  Can.  47,  sanction  such  baptisms.  The 
Acta  Laurentii,  apud  Surium  Tom.  IV.,  mention  a  Ro- 
man soldier  who  was  baptized  by  Laurence  with  a  pitcher 
of  water ;  and  the  same  person  also  baptized  Lucillus 
by  pouring  water  upon  his  head.  But  all  such  cases 
Avere  manifestly  regarded  as  exceptions  to  the  common 
usage  of  the  church. 

If  the  testimony  already  adduced  should  not  be  suf- 
ficient to  satisfy  any  reasonable  person,  he  may  con- 
sider one  circumstance  more,  which  must  be  decisive. 
This  is,  that  all  candidates  for  baptism,  men,  women, 
and  infants,  were  completely  divested  of  all  their  gar- 


150  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ments  in  order  to  be  baptized.  Eevolting  as  this  cus- 
tom was,  yet  it  is  as  certain  as  testimony  can  make  it. 

Thus,  Chrysostom  (Horn.  6  in  Coloss.),  speaking  of 
baptism,  says  :  "  Men  were  as  naked  as  Adam,  .  .  .  but 
with  this  difference,  Adam  was  naked  because  he  had 
sinned,  but  in  baptism  a  man  was  naked  that  he  might 
be  freed  from  sin."  So  Ambrose,  Serm.  X.,  "Naked 
were  we  born  into  the  world ;  naked  came  we  to  the 
baptismal  font.  .  .  .  How  absurd,  then,  that  he  whom 
his  mother  brought  forth  naked,  the  church  received 
naked,  should  enter  heaven  with  riches!"  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem  testifies  the  same  thing,  Catech.  Myst.  2, 
"  As  soon  as  ye  came  into  the  baptistery,  ye  put  off 
your  clothes,  .  .  .  and  being  thus  divested,  ye  stood 
naked,  imitating  Christ,  who  was  naked  upon  the  cross. 
.  .  .  O  wonderful  thing !  ye  were  naked  in  the  sight  of 
men,  and  were  not  ashamed;  in  this  truly  imitating 
the  first  man,  Adam,  who  was  naked  in  paradise,  and 
was  not  ashamed." 

One  testimony  more  may  suffice.  Chrysostom,  in 
describing  the  violent  proceedings  of  his  enemies  against 
him,  on  the  great  Sabbath  [before  Easter],  says :  "  They 
came  armed  into  the  church,  and  by  violence  expelled 
the  clergy,  killing  many  in  the  baptistery ;  by  which 
the  women,  who  were  at  that  time  unclothed,  in  order 
to  be  baptized,  were  put  into  such  a  fright  that  they 
fled  away  naked,  and  could  not  stay,  in  their  terror,  to 
put  on  such  clothes  as  the  modesty  of  the  sex  required." 

Enough  of  this  most  unaccountable  of  all  the  prac- 
tices of  the  ancient  church.  I  am  ready  to  thank  God 
for  the  honour  of  the  Christian  religion,  that  the  New 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  151 

Testament  contains  no  intimation  of  such  a  usage  ;  nor 
even  any  of  the  earlier  fathers.  How  it  was  possible 
that  it  could  prevail,  is  a  problem  difficult  of  solution. 
I  know  well  that  the  manners  of  ancient  times  rendered 
such  tilings  less  scandalous  than  they  would  now  be 
among  us.  But  who  needs  to  be  told,  that  nothing  but 
ignorance  or  superstition,  to  make  the  very  best  of  the 
case,  could  ever  have  adopted  and  continued  such  a 
shameful  practice. 

Still,  say  what  Ave  may  concerning  it  in  a  moral 
point  of  view,  the  argument  to  be  deduced  from  it,  in 
respect  to  immersion,  is  not  at  all  diminished.  Nay,  it 
is  strengthened.  For  if  such  a  violation  of  decency 
was  submitted  to,  in  order  that  baptism  might  be  per- 
formed as  the  church  thought  it  should  be,  it  argues 
that  baptizing  by  immersion  was  considered  as  a  rite 
not  to  be  dispensed  with. 

•  The  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion,  the  Oriental 
church  has  always  continued  to  preserve,  even  down  to 
the  present  time ;  see  Allatii  de  Eccles.  Orient,  et  Oc- 
cident. Lib.  III.  c.  12.  §  4  ;  Acta  et  Script.  Thel.  Wir- 
temb.  et  Patriarch.  Constant.  Jer.  p.  63,  p.  238,  sq. 
Christ.  Anguii  Enchirid.  de  Statu  hodierno  Graecor. 
cap.  24 ;  Augusti,  Denkwurd.  VII.  p.  266,  sq.  The 
members  of  this  church  are  accustomed  to  call  the 
members  of  the  western  churches,  sprinkled  Christians, 
by  way  of  ridicule  and  contempt ;  Walch's  Einleit.  in 
die  relig.  Streitigkeiten,  Th.  V.  pp.  476-481.  They 
maintain  that  fiairrifa  can  mean  nothing  but  immerge; 
and  that  baptism  by  sprinkling  is  as  great  a  solecism  as 
immersion  by  aspersion  ;  and  they  claim  to  themselves 


152  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

the  honour  of  having  preserved  the  ancient  sacred  rite 
of  the  church  free  from  change  and  from  corruption, 
which  would  destroy  its  signiflcancy ;  see  Alex,  de 
Stourdza,  Considerations  sur  la  Doctrine  et  1'  Esprit  de 
1'  Eglise  Orthodoxe,  Stuttg.  1816,  pp.  83-89. 

F.  Brenner,  a  Eoman  Catholic  writer,  has  recently 
published  a  learned  work,  which  contains  a  copious 
history  of  usages  in  respect  to  the  baptismal  rite  ;  viz., 
Geschichtliche  Darstellung  der  Yerrichtung  der  Taufe, 
etc.  1818.  I  have  not  seen  the  work ;  but  it  is  spoken 
of  highly,  on  account  of  the  diligence  and  learning 
which  the  author  has  exhibited  in  his  historical  details. 
The  result  of  them  respecting  the  point  before  us,  I 
present,  as  given  by  Augusti,  Denkwiird.  VII.  p.  68. 

"  Thirteen  hundred  years  was  baptism  generally  and 
ordinarily  performed  by  the  immersion  of  a  man  under 
water ;  and  only  in  extraordinary  cases  was  sprinkling 
or  affusion  permitted.  These  latter  methods  of  bap- 
tism were  called  in  question,  and  even  prohibited." 
Brenner  adds :  "  For  sixteen  hundred  years  was  the 
person  to  be  baptized,  either  by  immersion  or  affusion, 
entirely  divested  of  his  garments." 

These  results  will  serve  to  show  what  a»-Eoman  Cath- 
olic writer  feels  himself  forced  by  historical  facts  to 
allow,  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  present  practice  of 
his  own  church  ;  which  nowhere  practices  immersion, 
except  in  the  churches  of  Milan  ;  it  being  everywhere 
else  even  forbidden. 

In  the  work  of  John  Floyer  on  Cold  Bathing,  p.  50, 
it  is  mentioned,  that  the  English  church  practised  im- 
mersion down  to  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  153 

tur  j ;  when  a  change  to  the  method  of  sprinkling  grad- 
ually took  place.  As  a  confirmation  of  this,  it  may- 
be mentioned,  that  the  first  Liturgy,  in  1547,  enjoins  a 
trine  immersion,  in  case  the  child  is  not  sickly ;  Au- 
gust!, ut  sup.  p.  229. 

We  have  collected  facts  enough  to  authorize  us  now 
to  come  to  the  following  general  conclusion,  respecting 
the  practice  of  the  Christian  church  in  general,  with 
regard  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  viz.,  that  from  the  ear- 
liest  ages  of  which  we  have  any  account,  subsequent 
to  the  apostolic  age,  and  downward  for  several  centu- 
ries, the  churches  did  generally  practise  baptism  by 
immersion ;  perhaps  by  immersion  of  the  ivhole  person  ; 
and  that  the  only  exceptions  to  this  mode  which  were 
usually  allowed,  were  in  cases  of  urgent  sickness  or 
other  cases  of  immediate  and  imminent  danger,  where 
immersion  could  not  be  practised. 

It  may  also  be  mentioned  here,  that  aspersion  and 
affusion,  which  had  in  particular  cases  been  now  and 
then  practised  in  primitive  times,  were  gradually  intro- 
duced. These  became  at  length,  as  we  shall  see  here- 
after, quite  common,  and  in  the  western  church  almost 
universal,  sometime  before  the  Eeformation. 

In  what  manner,  then,  did  the  churches  of  Christ, 
from  a  very  early  period,  to  say  the  least,  understand 
the  word  $a-mic,u  in  the  New  Testament?  Plainly 
they  construed  it  as  meaning  immersion.  They  some- 
times even  went  so  far  as  to  forbid  any  other  method 
of  administering  the  ordinance,  cases  of  necessity  and 
mercy  only  excepted. 

I£  then,  we  are  left  in  doubt  after  a  philological  in- 
7* 


154:  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

vestigation  of  fiaTrriga,  how  much,  it  necessarily  im- 
plies ;  if  the  circumstances  which  are  related  as  accom- 
panying this  rite,  so  far  as  the  New  Testament  has 
given  them,  leave  us  still  in  doubt ;  if  we  cannot  trace 
with  any  certainty  the  Jewish  proselyte  baptism  to  a 
period  as  early  as  the  baptism  of  John  and  Jesus,  so  as 
to  draw  any  inferences  with  probability  from  this  ;  still 
we  are  left  in  no  doubt  as  to  the  more  generally  re- 
ceived usage  of  the  Christian  church,  down  to  a  period 
several  centuries  after  the  apostolic  age. 

That  the  Greek  fathers,  and  the  Latin  ones  who  were 
familiar  with  the  Greek,  understood,  the  usual  import 
of  the  word  Panri.^  would  hardly  seem  to  be  capable 
of  a  denial.  That  they  might  be  confirmed  in  their 
view  of  the  import  of  this  word,  by  common  usage 
among  the  Greek  classic  authors,  we  have  seen  in  the 
first  part  of  this  dissertation. 

For  myself,  then,  I  cheerfully  admit,  that  /3a7rr/£a>  in 
the  New  Testament,  when  applied  to  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism, does  in  all  probability  involve  the  idea,  that  this 
rite  was  usually  performed  by  immersion,  but  not  al- 
ways. I  say  usually  and  not  always  ;  for  to  say  more 
than  this,  the  tenor  of  some  of  the  narrations,  particu- 
larly in  Acts  10  :  47,  48 ;  16  :  32,  33,  and  2  :  41,  seem 
to  me  to  forbid.  I  cannot  read  these  examples,  with- 
out the  distinct  conviction  that  immersion  was  not  prac- 
tised on  these  occasions,  but  washing  or  affusion. 

For  the  satisfaction  of  the  reader,  I  add  here  a  word 
respecting  the  manner  in  which  the  author  of  the 
Peshito,  an  old  Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament, 
has  rendered  the  word  fta^ri^o). 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  155 

This  version  is  the  oldest  of  all  the  translations  of 
the  New  Testament  that  are  extant ;  for  in  all  proba- 
bility it  should  be  dated  during  the  first  half  of  the  sec- 
ond century.  Withal,  it  is  admitted  by  those  who 
are  able  to  consult  it,  to  be  one  of  the  most  faithful  and 
authentic  of  all  the  ancient  versions. 

How  does  this  translate  the  word  in  question  ?.  Only 
and  always  by  ^v^  which  corresponds  (in  point  of 
form)  to  the  Hebrew  -jay,  the  Chaldee  lto*,  and  the  same 
word  in  the  Arabic.  This  is  a  very  remarkable  cir- 
cumstance; for  the  Syriac  has  a  word-,  ^a^j  ^e  tne 
Chaldee  22:2  and  the  corresponding  Hebrew  3>5t3 .  which 
means  to  plunge,  dip,  immerse,  etc.  See  in  Mich.  Syr. 
Lex.  sub  voce.  Why  should  it  employ  the  word  ,  sq^ 
then  (i.  e,,  i^s),  in  order  to  render  fianri^ui  ?  In  the 
Old  Testament  it  is  employed  in  the  like  sense,  only 
in  Num.  31  :  84.  Elsewhere,  the  Hebrew  )ao  is  ren- 
dered vj7^  ,  There  is  no  analogy  of  kindred  languages 
to  support  the  sense  in  question  of  the  Syriac  ,^. 
The  Hebrew,  Chaldee,  and  Arabic,  all  agree  in  assign- 
ing to  the  same  word  the  sense  of  the  Lat.  stare,  per- 
stare,fulcire,  roborare.  It  is  hardly  credible,  that  the 
Syriac  word  could  vary  so  much  from  all  these  lan- 
guages, as  properly  to  mean,  immerse,  dip,  etc. 

We  come  almost  necessarily  to  the  conclusion,  then, 
inasmuch  as  the  Syriac  has  an  appropriate  word  which 
signifies  to  dip,  plunge,  immerse  (\jfc  *  ),  and  yet  it  i  s 
never  employed  in  the  Peshito,  that  the  translator  did 
not  deem  it  important  to  designate  any  particular  mode 
of  baptism,  but  only  to  designate  the  rite  by  a  term 


156  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

which  evidently  appears  to  mean,  confirm,  establish,  etc. 
Baptism,  then,  in  the  language  of  the  Peshito,  is  the 
rite  of  confirmation  simply,  while  the  manner  of  this  is 
apparently  left  without  being  at  all  expressed. 

We  now  come,  after  these  philological  and  historical 
investigations,  to  our  main  question. 

§  9.  Importance  of  the  Mode  of  Baptism. 

V.  Is  any  particular  mode  of  applying  water  in  bap- 
tism, essential  to  the  performance  of  this  rite  ? 

The  advocates  of  immersion,  in  the  Oriental  church, 
and  elsewhere,  sometimes  make  the  appeal  to  the  sixty 
millions  of  Christians,  who,  as  they  affirm,  preserve 
this  apostolic  usage.  But  if  an  appeal  to  numbers  be 
argument,  what  shall  we  say  to  one  hundred  and  fifty 
millions,  who  practise  sprinkling  or  affusion  ?  Even 
the  Eoman  Catholic  church,  jealous  as  she  is  of  ancient 
usages,  and  tenacious  of  that  which  the  ancient  fathers 
practised,  retains  immersion,  as  we  have  seen,  only  in 
the  churches  of  Milan,  and  inhibits  it  elsewhere. 

What  do  these  facts  show  ?  They  prove,  at  least,  a 
general  conviction  in  the  minds  of  Christians,  that  im- 
mersion is  not  essential,  nor  even  important.  I  need 
not  make  the  appeal  to  multitudes  of  writers,  Catholic 
and  Protestant,  who  have  often  and  fully  expressed 
this  view  of  the  subject.  Calvin,  Instit.  IV.  c.  15. 
§  19,  says :  "  It  is  of  no  consequence  at  all  (minimum 
refert),  whether  the  person  baptized  is  totally  immersed, 
qr  whether  he  is  merely  sprinkled  by  an  affusion  of 
water.  This  should  be  a  matter  of  choice  to  the 
churches  in  different  regions  ;  although  the  word  bap- 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  157 

tize  signifies  to  immerse,  and  the  rite  of  immersion  was 
practised  by  the  ancient  church." 

To  this  opinion  I  do  most  fully  and  heartily  sub- 
scribe ;  not  because  it  is  Calvin's,  nor  because  the  great 
majority  of  Christians  have  adopted  it.  I  have  other, 
and  I  trust  better,  reasons  than  either  of  these  ;  and  it 
is  proper  that  I  should  now  give  them. 

1.  The  rite  in  question  is  merely  external.  I  do  not 
deny,  that  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  may  be  given,  when 
baptism  is  performed ;  but  I  feel  myself  authorized  to 
say,  that  the  rite  itself  does  not  sanctify;  nor  does  the 
administration  of  it  secure  the  sanctifying  influences  of 
the  Spirit  of  God.  The  appeal  in  proof  of  this,  is  to 
the  millions  of  cases  in  which  baptism  has  been  ad- 
ministered to  persons  who  have  shown  themselves  to 
be  utterly  "destitute  of  sanctifying  grace,  by  the  whole 
tenor,  from  first  to  last,  of  their  lives  and  conversation. 
It  is  not,  then,  the  opus  operatum,  the  rite  itself  as  ad- 
ministered by  any  Christian  minister,  which  sanctifies, 
or  can  sanctify,  any  individual.  All  that  can  with 
truth  be  said  here,  is,  that  this  rite,  like  any  other  mat- 
ter which  concerns  religious  ordinances,  may  be  used 
to  a  good  purpose,  or  abused  to  a  bad  one. 

•  Whenever  an  enlightened  Christian  wishes  to  make 
the  inquiry,  what  is  essential  to  his  religion,  should  he 
not  instinctively  open  his  Bible  at  John  iv.,  and  there 
read  thus:  "Believe  me,  the  hour  cometh,  when  ye 
shall  worship  the  Father,  neither  in  this  mountain  nor 
yet  at  Jerusalem.  .  .  .  The  hour  cometh,  and  now  is, 
when  the  true  worshippers  shall  worship  the  Father  in 
spirit  and  in  truth  ;  for  the  Father  seeketh  such  to  wor- 


158  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ship  ham.  GOD  IS  A  SPIRIT,  and  they  that  worship 
him  must  worship  him  IN  SPIRIT  AND  IN  TRUTH." 

Here  is  the  very  foundation  principle  of  all  Christian 
and  all  acceptable  worship.  God,  who  is  himself  a 
Spirit,  requires  the  homage  of  our  spirits.  All  else  is 
nothing,  while  this  is  withheld ;  and  when  this  is  given, 
all  else  is  circumstance,  not  essence. 

I  need  not  stop  to  prove  positions  so  plain  and  cer- 
tain as  these.  But.  I  may  ask,  Can  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism, which  in  itself  is  only  an  external  rite,  enter  into 
the  essentials  of  piety  or  true  religion  ?  The  mere  mode 
of  an  external  rite  essential  to  the.  Christian  religion ! 
Does  not  the  question  answer  itself  to  every  mind  that 
has  not  gone  over  into  some  degree  of  Pharisaic  super- 
stition ? 

2.  But  you  will  say,  perhaps,  that  if  the  rite  is  to  be 
performed  at  all,  it  must  be  performed  in  the  manner 
which  the  New  Testament  enjoins.  This  leads  me  to 
my  second  remark,  viz.,  That  no  injunction  is  anywhere 
given  in  the  New  Testament  respecting  the  manner  in 
which  this  rite  shall  be  performed. 

If  there  be  such  a  passage,  let  it  be  produced.  This 
cannot  be  done.  But  it  will,  doubtless,  be  said,  that 
"  the  manner  of  the  rite  is  involved  in  the  word  itself 
which  is  used  to  designate  it ;  and  that,  therefore,  this 
is  as  much  a  matter  of  command  as  the  rite  itself." 

To  this  I  answer,  that  it  would  prove  a  great  deal  too 
much.  I  may  illustrate  this  by  a  case,  which  is  of  a 
parallel  nature,  and  has  respect  to  a  rite  of  equal  im- 
portance ;  I  mean  the  Lord's  Supper. "  The  original  in- 
stitution of  this  rite  took  place  at  the  last  passover, 


CIIRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  159 

which  Jesus  and  his  disciples  celebrated  in  Jerusalem. 
They  were  assembled  in  an  upper  room ;  Luke  22  :  12. 
They  reclined  upon  the  usual  sofa  or  triclinium,  on 
which  the  ancients  reposed  at  their  meals ;  John,  13 :  28, 
25.  It  was  night  when  they  kept  the  feast ;  John  13 :  30. 
They  kept  it  with  unleavened  bread,  for  no  other  was 
found  in  the  houses  of  the  Jews,  at  the  feast  of  the  pass- 
over  ;  Ex.  12  :  19.  The  wine  which  they  drank  was 
that  of  Palestine — probably  red  wine.  It  was  kept  in 
leathern  bottles ;  it  was  served  in  peculiar  vessels.  The 
bread  was  made  in  a  certain  particular  fashion.  The 
clothes  of  the  guests  were  of  a  certain  form.  In  a  word, 
all  the  circumstances  of  the  occasion  were,  in  some  re- 
spect or  other,  different  from  those  which  now  accom- 
pany the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Yet 
Jesus  gave  command  respecting  this  ordinance  in  the 
following  manner :  This  do,  in  remembrance  of  me; 
Luke  22 :  19,  20;  1  Cor.  11  :  24,  25. 

I  ask,  now,  all  the  advocates  for  the  literal  sense  of 
/3a7TTi^w,  who  urge  upon  the  churches  the  original 
mode  of  this  rite,  why  they  do  not  urge  upon  them,  in 
the  same  manner,  and  for  the  same  reason,  the  literal 
doing  of  what  Christ  commanded  as  to  the  sacrament  ? 
Is  that  ordinance,  which  is  a  symbol  of  the  blood  of 
Jesus  shed  for  the ,  remission  of  sins — of  that  blood 
which  taketh  away  sin,  and  without  which  there  is  no 
salvation — is  that  ordinance  of  less  significance  and  im- 
portance than  the  rite  of  baptism?  This  cannot  be 
pretended.  "Why,  then,  do  you  not  plead  for  its  cele- 
bration by  night ;  and  this,  too,  in  a  reclining  posture, 
in  an  upper  chamber,  with  unleavened  bread,  with  the 


160  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

dress,  furniture,  and  attendance,  that  originally  were 
exhibited  ?  You  regard  not  one  of  all  these  circum- 
stances— not  even  a  single  one.  How,  then,  do  you 
obey  the  command  of  Jesus,  This  do  in  remembrance 
of  me  ?  According  to  the  tenor  of  your  own  exegesis, 
you  do  not  obey  it — you  cannot,  while  you  do  not  lit- 
erally imitate  all  these  particulars. 

But  you  say,  I  obey  the  substantial  part  of  the  com- 
mand, viz.,  to  partake  of  bread  and  wine,  in  grateful 
remembrance  of  the  death  of  Christ ;  and  this  is  all 
which  the  nature  of  the  case  seems  to  require.  The 
symbol  in  question  is  really  and  truly  exhibited,  when 
I  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  in  such  a  way  that  an 
appropriate  meaning  is  really  and  truly  given  to  it. 
The  circumstances  of  place,  time,  position  of  the  guests 
at  the  table,  dress,  furniture  of  the  table  and  room,  and 
other  like  things,  are  merely  of  a  local  and  accidental 
nature.  They  cannot  make  an  essential  part  of  the 
symbolic  representation ;  for  this  consists  merely  in 
using  such  elements  of  nourishment  and  refreshment 
for  the  body,  as  will  significantly  and  appropriately 
symbolize  the  nourishment  which  he  receives,  who 
spiritually  "eats  the  flesh  and  drinks  the  blood  of  the 
Son  of  Man." 

I  accede  to  the  correctness  of  this  answer.  It  con- 
veys a  sentiment  which  seems  spontaneously  to  com- 
mend itself  to  any  one  who  has  enlightened  and  spirit- 
ual views  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  I  can  go 
even  beyond  the  tenor  of  this  answer,  and  say  that,  in 
my  apprehension,  the  sacrament  would  be  really  and 
truly  observed,  if  those  elements  of  nourishment  for  the 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  161 

body  which  are  the  common  and  principal  ones  in  any 
place,  should  be  made  use  of  in  lieu  of  bread  and  wine, 
in  case  these  could  not  be  easily  procured.  The  whole 
symbolic  instruction  conveyed  by  the  ordinance  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  this :  What  food  and  drink,  repre- 
sented by  the  more  important  articles  of  the  same,  are 
to  the  body  for  its  nourishment  and  support  and  com- 
fort, that  a  crucified  Saviour  is  to  the  soul,  for  its  life 
and  preservation  and  comfort.  Could  not  the  inhab- 
itants of  a  country,  then,  to  whom  it  might  not  be  pos- 
sible to  procure  wheat-bread  and  wine  when  it  was 
proper  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper — might  they  not 
employ  other  aliments,  which  would  symbolize  the 
death  of  Christ,  and  the  benefits  of  that  death  to  the 
believer,  with  the  like  significancy?  How  can  we 
doubt  this,  without  adopting  a  principle,  which  must 
necessarily,  if  we  are  consistent  with  ourselves,  make 
us  the  literal  imitators  of  every  thing,  even  of  dress, 
furniture,  etc.,  which  existed  in  the  apostolic  ages. 

Look  at  the  case  of  Iceland  during  that  year  in  which 
the  island  remained,  for  the  whole  summer,  inclosed  in 
the  floating  ice  that  had  been  driven  there  from  the 
polar  sea,  and  no  access  from  abroad  to  the  island  was 
possible,  nor  any  egress  from  it.  Might  not  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  island,  reduced  to  live  upon  fish  and  wa- 
ter, have  celebrated  the  Lord's  Supper  acceptably  upon 
these  elements  ?  Would  it  not  have  been  as  monitory 
and  significant  to  them  as  bread  and  wine,  and  as  ac- 
ceptable to  him  who  instituted  the  feast  ?  The  man 
who  doubts  this,  must  believe  in  the  mysterious  and 
miraculous  virtue  of  the  sacrament  as  an  opus  operatum. 


162  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

With  such  an  one  it  is  not  my  present  purpose  to  con- 
tend. Christians,  as  I  must  think,  have  reason  to  bless 
God,  that  principles  such  as  that  man  cherishes,  are 
fast  vanishing  away  before  the  spreading  light  of  the 
Sun  of  Righteousness. 

Let  us  return  to  the  rite  of  baptism.  What  is  it  that 
it  signifies?  Purification  is  the  answer;  and  this  is 
the  only  scriptural  and  consistent  answer  that  we  can 
give.  So  Paul  seems  to  teach  us  :  "  Christ  loved  the 
church,  and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify 
and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  [baptism]  by 
the  word ;  that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glori- 
ous church,  not  having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such 
thing,  but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without  blemish;" 
Eph.  5  :  25-27.  "According  to  his  mercy  he  saved 
us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  i.  e.,  we  are  saved  by  that  regeneration 
or  sanctifying  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  of  which 
the  washing  with  water  is  an  emblem  or  symbol ;  for 
evidently  the  language  of  Paul  is  borrowed  from  this. 
So  again  in  Heb.  10  :  22,  "Let  us  draw  near  [to  God] 
with  a  true  heart,  in  full  assurance  of  faith,  having  our 
hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies 
washed  with  pure  water;"  where  again  the  symbol, 
i.  e.,  the  washing  of  the  body  with  pure  water,  is  joined 
with  the  thing  signified  by  it,  viz.,  the  having  the 
heart  sprinkled,  purified,  from  an  evil  conscience. 

In  accordance  with  all  this,  Peter  likewise  expresses 
himself:  "The  like  figure  whereunto,  baptism,  doth 
now  save  us  ;  not  the  putting  off  the  filth  of  the  flesh 
[not  the  mere  outward  cleansing  by  baptismal  water], 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  163 

but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God,"  i.  e., 
our  being  purified  so  that  we  live  with  a  good  con- 
science, or  (as  Paul  expresses  it)  "  sprinkled  from  an 
evil  conscience ;"  1  Pet.  3  :  21. 

The  Saviour  himself  has  uttered  the  like  sentiment : 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,"  John  3:5; 
i.  e.,  he  must  not  only  be  purified  by  baptismal  water, 
but  he  must  be  sanctified,  regenerated,  by  the  Spirit  of 
God. 

In  all  these  and  the  like  cases,  it  is  perfectly  clear 
that  baptism  is  considered  as  the  symbol  of  purification 
or  sanctification.  It  is  an  emblem  of  that  holiness  and 
purity  of  life  which  the  Christian  engages  to  exhibit, 
and  which  the  gospel  requires ;  it  is  significant  of  that 
sanctifying  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  a  Sa- 
viour's death  has  procured,  and  without  which  all  must 
perish  in  their  pollution. 

Even  in  those  controverted  passages  in  Eom.  6  :  4, 
5,  and  Col.  2  :  12,  baptism  is  connected  with  the  work 
of  the  Spirit,  and  is  significant  of  his  influence.  It  is  a 
dying  to  sin  and  being  raised  to  a  new  spiritual  life, 
which  is  prefigured  by  it.  How  greatly  this  has  been 
overlooked,  and  how  much  the  import  of  baptism  has 
been  estimated '  amiss,  both  in  ancient  and  modern 
times,  in  consequence  of  overlooking  the  plain  and  ob- 
vious import  of  the  baptismal  rite,  no  one  needs  to  be 
told  who  has  extensively  examined  this  subject. 

Why  should  baptism  be  made  symbolical  of  the 
death  of  Christ?  All  Jewish  analogy  is  against  it. 
What  were  all  the  ablutions  and  sprinklings  of  the  rit- 


164  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

ual  law  designed  to  prefigure  and  to  signify  ?  Most 
obviously  we  must  answer,  'purification.  The  Jew  who 
washed  his  body,  or  sprinkled  it  with  holy  water,  was 
taught  by  this  the  necessity  that  his  soul  should  also 
be  made  clean,  in  order  that  he  might  be  an  acceptable 
worshipper  of  that  God  who  is  a  Spirit,  and  seeks  for 
spiritual  worshippers.  How  could  any  thing  but  his 
ignorance  or  superstition  overlook  this  ?  Yet  many  a 
Jew  did  overlook  it,  and  trusted,  as  multitudes  now  do, 
to  the  virtue  of  the  external  ordinance,  to  the  opus 
operatum,  to  save  him.  But  neither  "the  blood  of 
goats  nor  bullocks,  nor  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling 
the  unclean,"  could  do  any  more  of  themselves  than 
"  purify  the  flesh  ;"  they  were  the  mere  emblems  of  a 
higher  and  spiritual  purification. 

So  it  is  with  baptism.  How  could  an  intelligent  and 
spiritually-minded  Jew  ever  have  regarded  this  rite  as 
designed  to  prefigure  the  death  and  burial  of  Christ, 
when  there  was  not  a  single  thing  that  bore  any  anal- 
ogy to  this,  in  all  the  ablutions  prescribed  by  the  ritual 
law ;  nothing  even  in  all  those  prescribed  by  the  su- 
perstition of  the  Pharisees?  The  thing  is  in  itself  alto- 
gether improbable.  It  is  doubly  so,  when  we  take 
into  consideration  those  passages  of  the  sacred  writers 
which  I  have  quoted  above,  and  which  show  the 
views  of  Christ  and  of  the  apostles,  as  to  the  symbol- 
ical meaning  of  baptism. 

Under  the  ancient  dispensation,  the  rites  were  di- 
vided into  two  great  classes,  viz.,  those  significant  of 
purity  or  purification,  and  those  significant  of  atonement 
for  sin.     Nothing  could  be  more  appropriate  than  this. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  165 

Man  needed  the  one  and  the  other  in  order  to  find  ac- 
ceptance with  God  ;  the  one  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit, 
and  the  other  of  the  Saviour  who  redeemed  us  by  his 
blood.  Is  there,  then,  any  change  in  the  essential  condi- 
tions of  salvation  under  the  new  dispensation  ?  None, 
we  must  answer.  Are  not  the  significant  symbols,  then, 
under  the  new  dispensation,  a  summary  of  those  which 
existed  under  the  old?  The  belief  of  this  spontane- 
ously forces  itself  upon  my  mind.  The  work  of  the 
Spirit  is  still  symbolized  under  the  gospel ;  and  a  Sa- 
viour's blood  is  still  represented.  The  one  baptism 
signifies ;  the  other  is  as  plainly  indicated  by  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

Whither  must  we  be  carried,  if  we  dissent  from  this 
view  of  the  subject,  and  maintain,  with  many  of  the 
Christian  fathers,  and  not  a  few  of  our  brethren  of  the 
present  day,  that  baptism  is  a  symbol  of  the  death  and 
burial  of  Christ  ?  All  analogy  is  against  it ;  for  thus 
the  ancient  dispensation  was  not  arranged.  The  na- 
ture of  the  thing  itself  is  against  it.  Water,  as  exhib- 
ited in  washing,  sprinkling,  etc.,  is  never  an  emblem  of 
death  and  the  grave ;  it  is  only  the  image  of  over- 
whelming floods,  or  of  mighty  rushing  streams,  that  is 
appropriate  to  signify  the  work  of  destruction.  •  But 
both  of  these  are  foreign  to  the  rite  of  baptism. 

Finally,  the  explanation  of  the  apostles  and  of  Jesus 
himself,  is  clearly  in  favour  of  connecting  baptism,  as  a 
symbol,  with  the  sanctifying  influences  of  the  Spirit  of 
God.  The  texts  produced  above,  and  which  are  so 
plainly  to  this  purpose,  will  not  be  overlooked  by  a 
candid  and  intelligent  inquirer. 


166  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

How  can  so  much  stress  be  laid,  then,  upon  Eom. 
6  :  4,  5,  and  Col.  2  :  12,  as  ascertaining  the  ancient 
mode  of  baptism  ?  Where  else  in  all  the  Bible  is  a 
ritual  washing  with  water  an  emblem  of  death  and 
burial  ?  Nowhere ;  and  I  venture,  therefore,  to  say,  that 
it  is  only  moral  or  spiritual  baptism  into  the  death  of 
Christ,  of  which  the  apostle  speaks  in  these  two  pas- 
sages. I  know  well,  that  an  appeal  against  this 
opinion  can  be  made  to  many  of  the  fathers.  But  I 
know,  too,  that  by  the  like  appeal  I  may  prove, 
equally  well,  that  baptism  must  be  performed  on  naked 
subjects;  and  moreover,  that  it  is  regeneration  and 
spiritual  illumination,  and  is  necessary  to  our  final  sal- 
vation. And  if  the  appeal  be  also  made  against  my 
opinion,  as  doubtless  it  will  be,  to  the  sentiments  of 
the  great  body  of  modern  critics  respecting  Eom.  6  :  4, 
5,  and  Col.  2  :  12,  I  must  still  say,  that  they  appear  to 
me  not  to  have  sufficiently  investigated  the  two-fold 
division  of  the  external  ritual  under  the  ancient  dis- 
pensation and  under  the  Christian  one,  viz.,  into  rites 
emblematic  of  purity,  and  rites  emblematic  of  atone- 
ment for  sin.  Where  is  the  first  of  these,  if  baptism  is 
merely  a  type  or  emblem  of  the  death  of  Christ  ?  Have 
we,  then,  two  rites  under  the  new  dispensation,  and 
both  significant  of  only  one  and  the  same  thing,  viz., 
the  death  of  Jesus  ?  Is  this  probable  ?  Is  it  credible  ? 
Can  we  believe  it  to  be  so,  without  the  most  explicit 
testimony  ? 

Yet  the  nature  of  the  thing  itself,  and  all  the  scrip- 
tural testimony  concerning  it,  indicate  that  the  rites  of 
the  new  dispensation  have  an  essential  correspondence 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  167 

■with  those  of  the  ancient  one.  I  must  regard  this  as 
being  real  matter  of  fact,  until  I  see  the  whole  subject 
in  a  light  very  different  from  that  in  which  I  now 
view  it. 

Once  more,  then,  directly  to  our  point.  Is  it  essen- 
tial, in  order  that  baptism  should  symbolize  purifica- 
tion or  purity,  that  it  should  be  performed  by  im- 
mersion ?  Plainly  not ;  for  in  ancient  times  it  was  the 
water  which  was  sprinkled  upon  the  offending  Jew,  that 
was  the  grand  emblem  of  purification.  So  Paul  con- 
siders it,  when  he  gives  us,  as  it  were,  a  summary  of 
the  whole  ritual  of  purification,  by  specifying  the  most 
significant  of  all  its  usages,  viz.,  that  of  the  ashes  of  a 
heifer  mixed  with  water  (Num.  19  :  17),  with  which 
"the  unclean  are  sprinkled"  Heb.  9  :  13.  So,  too,  he 
decides,  when  he  speaks  of  "drawing  near  to  God,  in 
the  full  assurance  of  faith,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled 
from  an  evil  conscience,"  Heb.  10  :  22.  So  also,  even 
when  atonement  was  made ;  for  although  sometimes 
the  blood  was  poured  out  at  the  basis  of  the  altar,  and 
sometimes  smeared  on  its  horns,  and  on  parts  of  the 
person  for  whom  expiation  was  to  be  made,  yet  the 
grand  significant  emblem  was  that  of  sprinkling.  On 
the  great  day  of  atonement,  the  high-priest  entered  the 
most  holy  place,  and  sprinkled  the  ark  of  the  covenant 
with  blood ;  Lev.  4  :  17 ;  Heb.  9  :  25.  Hence  Paul 
speaks  of  the  blood  of  Jesus,  as  "  the  blood  of sprinkling, 
which  speaketh  better  things  than  the  blood  of  Abel ;" 
i.  e.,  Jesus'  blood  calls  for  pardon,  but  Abel's  for  ven- 
geance,  Heb.  12  :  24.     Peter  also  adopts  the  same 

Elect .  .  . 


168  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

unto  obedience,  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  and 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus,"  1  Pet.  1  :  2. 

Nor  was  this  all.  When  the  whole  nation  were 
consecrated  to  God,  at  Mount  Sinai,  they,  and  the 
book  of  the  Law,  and  the  tabernacle,  and  all  the  ves- 
sels of  the  ministry,  were  sprinkled  with  blood,  Heb. 
9  :  19—21. 

It  is,  then,  a  perfectly  clear  case,  that  the  sprinkling 
of  water  or  of  blood,  was  altogether  the  most  significant 
mode  of  purification,  or  of  atonement,  or  of  consecra- 
tion to  God,  under  the  ancient  dispensation.  And  so 
the  prophet  Ezekiel  speaks  of  water  to  be  sprinkled, 
under  the  new  dispensation.  After  describing  the 
gathering  in  of  all  the  Jews  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 
he  represents- Jehovah  as  saying,  "Then will  1  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean  ;  from  all 
your  filthiness  and  from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse 
you.  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,"  etc.  Ezek. 
36  :  25,  26. 

Is  there  no  significancy,  then,  in  that  mode  of  a  rite, 
which,  above  all  others,  is  spoken  of  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  New,  as  the  emblem  of  purification  and 
atonement  and  consecration  ?  Could  Jews,  who  thus 
spoke  and  wrote  about  the  application  of  water  and 
blood  by  sprinkling,  find  in  sprinkling  no  due  signifi- 
cancy of  purification?  The  question  answers  itself, 
after  the  considerations  which  have  already  been  sug- 


In  performing  the  rite  of  baptism,  then,  what  are  we 
to  aim  at?  The  shadow,  or  the  substance?  The  sub- 
stance, enlightened  Christians  should  say.     But  is  not 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  169 

the  substance  the  symbolizing  of  purity  or  purification  ? 
This,  I  hope,  will  not  be  denied.  If,  then,  water  be 
applied  in  any  such  way  as  to  make  the  symbol  or 
emblem  significant  or  expressive,  and  highly  so, 
then  is  the  main  purpose  of  the  rite  answered.  We 
have  decided  this  to  be  the  case,  in  respect  to  the 
Lord's  Supper;  why,  then,  should  we  be  inconsistent 
with  ourselves,  and  deny  it  here  ? 

After  the  examples' which  have  been  adduced  of  the 
significancy  of sprinkling,  both  from  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New,  I  would  hope  that  none  of  my  readers 
will  be  dissatisfied,  if  I  consider  this  significancy  as  a 
point  made  out.  And  now — what  remains  ?  Must  I 
show  that  we  are  not  at  liberty,  without  being  justly 
exposed  to  the  accusation  of  gross  departure  from 
Christianity,  to  depart  from  the  modes  and  forms  of  the 
apostolic  church  in  any  respect  ?  I  have  shown  that 
all  the  churches  on  earth  do  depart  from  these,  in  their 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  yet  without  any 
apprehension  of  being  guilty  of  an  impropriety,  much 
less  of  being  justly  chargeable  with  the  spirit  of  diso- 
bedience and  revolt.  I  could  easily  extend  this  part 
of  my  view  to  many  other  particulars.  I  ask  those  who 
plead  for  literal  conformity  in  mode  to  the  ancient  rite 
of  baptism,  how  they  dispose  of  the  ordinance  respect- 
ing the  disciples'  washing  each  others'  feet,  described 
at  large  in  John,  c.  xiii,  and  particularly  enjoined  in 
vs.  14,  15?  "Who  has  repealed  the  obligation  to  a 
literal  conformity  with  this  command  ?  You  will  say, 
•It  is  the  spirit,  rather  than  the  letter,  which  is  here  in- 
culcated. I  accede.  But  what  is  the  case  in  respect 
8 


170  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

to  baptism  ?  Will  nothing  but  the  letter  do  here  ?  So 
you  may  think  and  reason ;  but  are  you  not  entirely 
inconsistent  with  yourself? 

Why  do  we  not  feel  bound  at  the  present  day  to 
follow  the  prescriptions  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthian 
churches,  in  c.  xi.  of  his  first  epistle  to  them  ?  In  this 
chapter,  women  are  directed  to  appear  in  public  veiled ; 
to  wear  their  hair  long ;  and  men  to  wear  theirs  short ; 
vs.  10 — 15.  Is  this  matter  of  obligation  now  to  us? 
Who  believes  and  practices  it?  No  churches  on  earth, 
unless  their  civil  customs  lead  them  so  to  do.  But 
when  and  where  were  the  precepts  of  Paul  repealed? 
Never  and  no  where,  if  I  must  answer  in  the  spirit  of 
those  who  urge  the  literal  meaning  of  pa-xT^u)  upon 
the  churches ;  always  and  every  where,  I  may  answer 
in  another  spirit  and  with  other  views,  whenever  and 
wherever  external  customs  and  circumstances  differ 
from  those  of  the  Corinthian  churches.  Mere  externals 
must  be  things  of  particular  time  and  place.  Dress  does 
not  make  the  man.  One  dress  may  be  more  conve- 
nient, or  more  decorous  than  another ;  but  neither  the 
one  nor  the  other  is  an  essential  part  of  the  person. 

So  the  common  feeling  of  men  has  decided  about 
most  of  the  external  matters  pertaining  to  religion,  the 
world  over.  They  have  always  been  modified  by  time 
and  place,  by  manners  and  customs,  and  they  always 
will  be.  The  zealot  may  declaim  against  this,  and  cry 
out  that  the  church  is  in  danger,  and  that  she  has  de- 
parted from  the  commands  of  the  gospel ;  but  consid- 
erate and  really  spiritual  men  will  reply,  that  "God  is 
a  Spirit,  and  that  he  seeks  spiritual  worshippers." 


CHEISTIAN   BAPTISM.  171 

Accordingly,  long  before  the  light  of  the  Reform  a- 
tion  began  to  dawn  upon  the  churches,  the  Roman 
Catholics  themselves  were  gradually  adopting  the 
method  of  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  affusion,  notwith- 
standing their  superstitious  and  excessive  devotedness 
to  the  usages  of  the  ancient  churches.  So  testifies  o©e 
of  the  most  intelligent  and  useful  ecclesiastical  writers 
of  the  earlier  part  of  the  dark  ages  ;  I  mean  Walafriecl 
Strabo  (ob.  849),  abbot  of  the  convent  of  St.  Gall.  His 
words  ran  thus:  "  It  should  be  noted,  that  many  have 
been  baptized,  not  only  by  immersion,  but  by  affusion 
(non  solum  mergendo,  verum  etiam  de  super  fundendo), 
and  they  may  yet  be  baptized  in  this  manner,  if  there  be 
any  necessity  for  it;  as,  in  the  passion  of  St.  Lawrence, 
we  read  of  a  certain  person  baptized  by  water  brought 
in  a  pitcher  (urceo  allato) ;"  De  Rebus  Eccles.  c'  26. 
So  Thomas  Aquinas  (fl.  1250)  in  Summa  Theol.  III. 
Ques.  66.  Art.  7,  says  :  "  It  is  safer  to  baptize  by  the 
mode  of  immersion,  because  this  has  common  usage  in 
its  favour."  But  these  very  words  show  that  a  differ- 
ent usage  was  coming  in,  and  that  Acprinas  did  not 
look  upon  it  with  any  strong  disapprobation.  In  the 
Statut.  Synod.  Leodiens.  anno  1287,  c.  2,  the  mode  of 
baptism  is  prescribed,  and  it  is  there  said,  "  That  dan- 
ger in  baptizing  may  be  avoided ;  let  not  the  head  of 
the  child  be  immersed  in  water,  but  let  the  priest  pour 
water  three  times  upon  the  head  of  the  child,  with  a 
basin,  or  some  other  clean  and  decent  vessel,  still 
holding  the  child  carefully  with  his  hand."  The  Synod 
at  Cambray  (Stat.  Synod.  Eccl.  Camerac.  an.  1800,  de 
Bapt.)  say :  "  That  danger  in  baptizing  may  be  avoided, 


172  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

let  not  [the  priest]  immerse  the  head  of  the  child  in  the 
water,  but,  when  he  baptizes,  let  him  pour  water  thrice 
upon  the  top  of  his  head,  with  a  basin  or  other  clean 
and  decent  vessel."  And  in  the  same  way  run  other 
decrees  of  councils  about  this  time;  while  some  are 
even  still  more  liberal,  permitting  baptism  to  be  per- 
formed either  by  immersion,  affusion,  or  sprinkling. 

All  this  serves  to  illustrate  how  there  sprung  up,  in 
the  bosom  of  a  church  superstitiously  devoted  to  an- 
cient rites  and  forms,  a  conviction  that  the  mode  of 
baptism  was  one  of  the  ddidtpopa  of  religion,  i.  e.,  some- 
thing unessential  to  the  rite  itself,  and  which  might  be 
modified  by  time  and  place,  without  any  encroachment 
upon  the  command  itself  to  baptize.  Gradually  did 
this  conviction  increase,  until  the  whole  Koman  Catholic 
church,  that  of  Milan  only  excepted,  admitted  it.  By 
far  the  greater  part  of  the  Protestant  world  have  also 
acceded  to  the  same  views.  Even  the  English  Epis- 
copal church,  and  the  Lutheran  churches,  both  zealous 
in  times  past  for  what  they  supposed  to  be  apostolic 
and  really  ancient  usage,  have  had  no  serious  difficulty 
in  adopting  modes  of  baptism  quite  different  from  that 
of  immersion. 

To  these  evidences  that  departure  from  the  method 
of  baptism  "by  immersion  is  not  a  novel  thing,  I  may 
add  some  accidental  testimony  of  a  very  interesting  na- 
ture, taken  from  a  late  work  of  F.  Muntcr,  bishop  of 
Zealand,  and  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  University 
of  Copenhagen,  entitled,  Sinnbilder  und  Kunstvorstel- 
lungen  der  alien  Christen.  Dr.  Miinter,  who  has  re- 
cently deceased,  is  regarded  in  Europe  as  having  been 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  173 

one  of  its  ablest  and  most  judicious  antiquarians.  Cer- 
tain it  is,  that  the  churches  are  greatly  indebted  to  him 
for  many  illustrations  of  ancient  facts  and  customs.  In 
the  second  part  of  the  work  whose  title  is  quoted  above, 
under  the  head  of  baptism,  he  has  .exhibited  several 
pictures  or  representations,  taken  mostly  from  ceme- 
teries and  catacombs,  some  of  which  deserve  particular 
notice. 

The  first  which  I  shall  mention  is  exhibited  in  Plate 
X.  fig.  59.  It  represents  Jesus  as  standing  in  the  Jor- 
dan, immersed  as  high  as  the  waist,  and  John  the  Bap- 
tist as  standing  on  the  shore,  holding  a  reed-staff  in  his 
left  hand,  while  his  right  is  laid  upon  the  head  of  the 
Saviour,  and  he  is  making  invocation  for  a  blessing. 
On  the  opposite  shore  of  the  river  stands  an  angel, 
with  a  basin  in  his  hand,  and  a  towel  for  the  purpose 
(as  it  would  seem)  of  wiping  off  the  water.  For  what 
purpose  this  basin  can  be  represented  in  the  picture, 
unless  it  be  for  that  of  pouring  water  on  the  head  of 
Jesus  when  he  was  baptized,  I  am  unable  to  divine. 
The  picture  Miinter  assigns  to  the  early  part  of  the 
middle  ages. 

In  confirmation  of  the  above  explanation,  I  may  re- 
fer to  a  picture  presented  by  Bosio,  in  his  Roma  Sot- 
ieranea,  1632,  p.  589.  The  Baptist  stands,  as  in  the 
representation  above,  with  his  clothes  on,  upon  the 
brink  of  Jordan ;  and  Jesus  stands  in  the  river,  im- 
mersed to  the  waist.  In  the  hand  of  John  is  a  basin, 
on  which  fire  is  represented  as  flowing  down  from 
heaven,  while  Jesus  is  affused  with  the  water  which 
descends  from  the  basin. 


171  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

In  Plate  XII.,  figs.  85  and  86,  are  two  more  repre- 
sentations of  the  rite  of  baptism.  In  fig.  85  are  two 
children,  who  apparently  have  attained  less  than  half 
their  growth,  standing  in  a  vase  of  water  which  falls  a 
little  below  the  waist,  and  in  which  it  would  be  impos- 
sible to  immerse  them,  on  account  of  the  small  size  of 
the  vase.  The  bishop  who  baptizes  is  represented  as 
having  completed  the  act,  and  is  presented  in  the  attitude 
of  invoking  the  divine  blessing,  while  he  lays  his  right 
hand  upon  the  head  of  one  of  the  children.  This  pic- 
ture Miinter  supposes  to  be  of  earlier  date  than  the 
10th  century.  Fig.  86  is  taken  from  Schone's  Oes- 
chitforschungen  iiber  die  kirchl.  Gebrauche  unci  Ein- 
richtungen  der  Christen,  and  was  copied  by  him  from  a 
roughly-hewn  stone  at  Aquileia.  The  person  baptized 
stands,  as  above,  in  a  vase  which  falls  below  the  knee, 
while  the  water  is  represented  as  streaming  from  a 
cloud  above,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  descending  in  the 
shape  of  a  dove.  The  bishop  stands  by,  and,  with  his 
right  hand  stretched  out,  is  invoking  a  blessing. 

Dr.  Miinter  mentions  also  two  other  pictures,  which 
are  presented  in  J.  Ciampini's  Explicatio  duorum  Sar- 
cophagorum  sacrum  baptismatis  ritum  indicantium,  Eom. 
1697.  In  one  of  these.,  a  man  and  woman  are  repre- 
sented as  kneeling  in  a  large  baptismal  basin,  while  the 
priest  pours  water  on  the  head  of  the  man  from  an  urn 
or  pitcher.  Ciampini  thinks  that  this  is  a  representa- 
tion of  the  baptism  of  Agilulf  and  his  wife,  Theodo- 
linde,  king  and  queen  of  the  Lombards,  in  A.  D.  591. 
The  second  picture  represents  a  man  kneeling  with 
folded  hands,  half  divested  of  his  clothing,  on  whose 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  175 

head  the  priest  pours  water  from  a  pitcher.  Both  of 
these  pictures  are  taken  from  sacophagi,  dug  up  in  the 
vicinity  of  Naples.  Ciampini  attributes  them  to  the 
sixth  century;  but  Miinter  judges  them  to  be  of  a  later 
age. 

It  may  naturally  be  asked,  Why  pictures  of  an  ear- 
lier date  than  any  of  these,  have  not  been  found  in 
cemeteries  and  catacombs,  and  in  the  ruins  of  ancient 
cities  ?  The  answer  is,  that  the  earlier  churches  never 
painted,  or  otherwise  represented  by  images,  the  sacred 
mysteries  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  for  such 
they  deemed  them  to  be.  Such,  in  fact,  they  continued 
to  be,  in  their  estimation,  until  the  German  nations  that 
came  in  upon  Eome  began  to  be  baptized  by  thousands ;« 
and  then,  of  course,  the  rite  of  baptism  could  no  longer 
be  regarded  as  secret.  From  this  time,  such  represen- 
tations of  this  rite  began  to  be  made  in  various  ways, 
as  have  been  described  above, 

It  will  be  seen  from  all  this,  that  Christians  began 
somewhat  early  to  deflect  from  the  ancient  practice  of 
immersing.  It  is  remarkable,  moreover,  that  so  far  as 
I  have  yet  been  able  to  discover,  there  is  not  one  of  the 
ancient  pictures  which  represents  baptism  as  performed 
by  immersion.  How  could  this  happen,  if  immersion 
was  so  general,  or  rather  so  universal,  in  the  middle 
ages,  as  it  has  often  been  affirmed  to  be  ?  But  I  must 
return  from  these  historical  notices  to  the  argument 
which  I  am  endeavouring  to  urge. 

From  all  that  has  been  said  above,  it  is  manifest  that 
the  great  body  of  Christians  have  long  come  to  the  full 
conviction,  that  no  one  particular  mode  of  baptism  can 


176  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

be  justly  considered  as  essential  to  the  rite  itself.  And 
is  there  not  sufficient  ground  for  this  in  the  consider- 
ations that  have  already  been  urged  ?  The  question, 
whether  a  religion  preeminently  spiritual,  simple,  and 
designed  to  be  universal,  would  probably  attach  import- 
ance to  the  mere  mode  of  an  external  rite,  is  one 
which  every  enlightened  mind  may  answer,  I  had  al- 
most said,  d  priori.  The  probability  is  at  once  felt  to 
be  strongly  against  it,  so  soon  as  any  one  has  thrown 
off  all  attachment  to  opus  operatum,  i.  e.,  to  the  mysti- 
cal power  and  merit  of  external  ceremonies.  Under 
the  gospel,  sanctification  and  purity  are  not  so  cheap, 
nor  to  be  had  on  such  easy  terms,  as  the  performance 
of  outward  rites.  Every  thing  which  teaches  what  is 
opposed  to  this  sentiment,  directly  or  indirectly,  con- 
tradicts the  spirit  of  the  gospel ;  for  this  demands  of  us, 
as  a  thing  fundamental  and  essential,  that  we  should 
be  "poor  in  spirit,11  and  "take  up  the  cross"  by  real 
and  internal  self-denial,  not  with  mere  outward  show 
and  ceremony. 

The  whole  may  be  summed  up  in  one  single  point. 
Either  the  rite  of  Jmptism  has  a  mystical  power  of  it- 
self to  sanctify,  which  depends  on  the  mode  of  its  ad- 
ministration, and  its  merit  as  an  opus  operation ;  or  it 
is  a  symbolical  rite,  significant  of  truth,  i.  e.,  of  doc- 
trine, or  fact.  A  mystical  power  one  cannot  believe 
in,  because  millions  of  baptized  persons  have  already 
gone  to  perdition  ;  over  these,  therefore,  baptism  never 
did  exercise  any  mystical  and  saving  influence.  But 
even  if  we  should  admit  the  existence  of  such  a  power, 
can  it  be  shown  that  it  is  exclusively  connected  with 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  177 

immersion  only  ?  Have  the  sanctifying  influences  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  been  limited  to  that  part  of  the  Chris- 
tian church  exclusively  who  practice  immersion  ?  So 
far  from  this,  that  the  most  vicious  and  ignorant  of  all 
who  bear  the  name  of  Christians,  are  the  most  numer- 
ous and  zealous  of  all  the  advocates  of  -immersion.  I 
refer,  in  this  declaration,  to  the  Oriental  church,  which 
has  a  name  to  live  while  it  is  twice  dead,  and  ought  to 
be  plucked  up  by  the  roots.  If  there  are  exceptions  to 
my  general  remark  (as  there  certainly  are,  and  most 
eminent  ones,  too,  among  the  Baptists  of  England  and 
America),  it  remains  to  be  shown  that  immersion  has 
any  thing  of  consequence  to  do  with  their  evangelical 
character.  The  Baptists  of  the  English  and  American 
world,  evangelical  and  devoted  to  religion  as  many  of 
them  truly  are,  do  not  surpass  in  piety,  as  I  must  be- 
lieve, many  of  their  brethren  in  Christ  who  differ  from 
them  in  respect  to  the  mode  of  baptism. 

"We  come,  then,  of  necessity  to  the  conclusion,  that 
the  moral  good  to  be  expected  from  baptism,  is  to  be 
derived  from  the  moral  or  spiritual  instruction  which 
it  conveys,  and  from  the  lively  manner  in  which  it 
impresses  this,  and  the  obligation  under  which  it  lays 
those  who  are  concerned  with  the  rite.  All  the  rest 
appears  to  be  mere  dreaming  Pharisaism ;  here  is  sub- 
stantial reality.  But  may  not  this  instruction  be  con- 
veyed as  well  by  affusion  or  sprinkling,  as  by  im- 
mersion ?  If  we  look  to  the  ancient  dispensation,  we 
must  say,  Yes.  If  we  look  at  the  nature  of  the  thing 
itself,  we  must  answer  in  the  affirmative.  If  we  appeal 
to  the  general  conviction  of  the  Christian  world,  winch 
8* 


178  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

lias  decided  against  patristic  and  ancient  usage,  we 
must  give  the  same  answer.  Water  applied  in  this 
way  or  in  that,  is  water  still,  i.  e.,  a  cleansing  and  pu- 
rifying element.  Its  significance  is  not  at  all  lost,  or 
even  obscured.  In  the  East,  where  bathing  is  so  com- 
mon, and  where  religious  rites  especially  have  required 
ablution,  it  may  be  more  significant,  in  some  cases,  to 
immerse  ;  but  in  the  west  and  north,  where  such  rites 
have  long  ceased  (if  indeed  they  were  ever  practiced), 
immersion  can  have  no  more  significancy  than  affusion 
or  sprinkling.  Why  then  insist  on  it  ?  Or  if  you  are 
conscience-bound  by  your  own  views  of  the  rite,  why 
judge  your  brother  who  is  not,  and  thinks  that  Chris- 
tianity was  never  designed  to  become  a  religion  of 
rituals  ? 

In  fine,  aspersion  or  affusion  of  water  exhibits,  and 
fully  exhibits,  the  essence  of  the  thing,  i.  e.,  the  in- 
struction and  symbol,  aimed  at  by  the  rite  of  baptism. 
Why  then  should  we  be  zealous  about  any  thing  more 
than  this  ?  Such  strenuousness,  I  am  most  fully  per- 
suaded, is  a  zeal  without  a  proper  degree  of  Christian 
knowledge  and  liberality  on  this  point.  It  is  a  zeal  for 
the  costume  of  religion,  rather  than  the  true  spirit  of  it. 
So  far  as  it  goes,  I  must  believe  it  to  be  really  and 
truly  sectarianism. 

On  the  other  hand,  to  maintain  that  sprinkling  or 
affusion  is  the  only  mode  of  baptism,  or  the  only  proper 
mode,  seems  to  me  to  partake  of  the  like  sectarian 
spirit.  The  great  body  of  Christians  have  long  ceased 
to  think  that  any  thing  of  importance,  in  a  religious 
respect,    is   exclusively   attached   to   either  of   these 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  179 

modes.  It  is  my  earnest  hope,  that  the  superstitions 
views  of  the  Christian  fathers,  in  respect  to  the  mode  of 
baptism,  may  never  again  mislead  the  churches,  or  in- 
terrupt their  harmony. 

3.  I  have  one  more  suggestion  to  make  in  respect  to 
the  mode  of  baptism.  This  is,  that  personsl  safety  and 
convenience  often  demand  that  immersion  should  be 
dispensed  with ;  and  therefore,  at  least,  it  cannot  well 
be  supposed  that  it  is  in  all  cases  necessary. 

So  thought  the  ancient  church,  even  when  they  at- 
tached a  very  undue  degree  of  importance  to  the  rito 
itself,  and  regarded  it,  for  the  most  part,  as  indispensa- 
ble to  salvation.  I  cannot  forbear  an  appeal  to  Cyprian, 
bishop  of  Carthage,  (fl.  A.  D.  240,)  a  warm-hearted 
Christian  and  a  martyr  to  his  religion.  When  the 
question  was  put  to  him,  whether  clinical  baptism,  i.  e., 
baptism  by  affusion  on  a  sick-bed,  was  valid,  he  an- 
swered thus : 

"  You  ask  of  me,  my  dear  Son,  what  I  think  respect- 
ing those  who  have  become  subjects  of  divine  grace  in 
a  state  of  languor  and  sickness ;  viz.,  whether  they  are 
to  be  regarded  as  lawful  Christians,  when  they  have 
not  been  bathed  with  saving  water  [immersed  by  bap- 
tism], but  perfusi,  bedewed,  affused.  In  regard  to  this, 
let  not  our  diffidence  and  modesty  hinder  any  one  to 
think  according  to  his  own  opinion,  and  practice  as  he 
thinks.  So  far  as  my  own  humble  opinion  goes,  I 
think  the  divine  benefits  [of  the  ordinance]  are  in  no 
degree  diminished  or  cut  short  [by  any  mode],  nor 
that  any  thing  of  the  divine  bounty  is  at  all  diminished, 
where  it  [the  ordinance]  is  received  by  the  full  faith  of 


180  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

him  who  receives  and  him  who  administers  it.  Nor 
do  I  think  that  the  contagion  of  sin  is  washed  away 
by  this  salutary  ordinance  (as  the  filth  of  the  skin  and 
body  is  by  corporeal  and  secular  bathing),  so  that  there 
is  any  need  of  soap  and  other  means,  [or]  of  a  bathing- 
tub  and  pool  in  which  the '  body  can  be  washed  and 
cleansed.  The  [physical]  breast  of  a  believer  is 
cleansed  in  one  way ;  the  mind  [or  soul]  of  man  in 
another  way,  by  the  deserts  of  faith.  In  sacred  rites 
performed  as  necessity  dictates,  through  divine  mercy, 
divine  favor  is  bestowed  on  those  who  sincerely  believe. 
Nor  should  any  be  troubled,  because  sick  persons  are 
SPRINKLED  or  AFFUSED,  since  they  obtain  the  favor  of 
God;  for  the  Holy  Spirit  says  by  Ezekiel  the  prophet: 
'Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,'  &c. 
[Ezek.  26  :  25.]  So  in  the  book  of  Numbers : . '  The 
man  who  shall  be  unclean  .  .  .  because  the  water 
of  sprinkling  is  not  sprinkled  upon  him.'  And  again-: 
'  The  Lord  said,  the  water  of  purification.'  And  again : 
'  The  water  of  sprinkling  is  purification.'  [Num.  19  : 
19,  20 ;  8:7;  19  :  12,  13.]  Hence  it  appears,  that 
SPRINKLING  is  of  like  value  with  the  salutary  bath  (aqua3 
instar  salutaris  lavacri  obtinere);  and  when  these 
things  are  done  in  the  church,  where  the  faith  is  sound 
of  the  giver  and  receiver,  all  is  valid  (omnia  stare), 
and  may  be  completed  and  effected  agreeably  to  the 
authority  of  the  Lord  and  the  truth  of  faith  (maj  estate 
Domini  et  fidei  veritate)."     Eph.  69  or  76. 

Here  then  sjirinkling,  so  early  as  the  former  half  of 
the  third  century,  is  pronounced  to  be  legitimate  and 
valid,  by  one  of  the  noblest  men  among  all  the  Chris- 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM.  181 

tian  fathers.  The  appeal  which  he  makes  to  the  Old 
Testament,  in  order  to  show  in  what  light  this  may  be 
considered,  is  altogether  apposite.  I  have  shown  above, 
what  significancy  this  mode  of  applying  either  water 
or  blood  had,  in  the  view  of  the  sacred  writers.  I  need 
only  to  add,  that  this  noble  and  liberal  decision  of 
Cyprian  was  confirmed  and  proclaimed  by  several  ec- 
clesiastical councils,  not  long  afterwards. 

That  the  aucient  church  habitually  permitted  depart- 
ure from  the  ordinary  method  of  baptism,  in  case  of 
extreme  sickness  or  danger,  has  been  already  remarked. 
The  principle  developed  by  this  permission,  so  ably  set 
forth  by  Cyprian,  is  what  I  design  still  further  to  illus- 
trate, under  my  present  head. 

The  cases  of  extreme  sickness  and  imminent  danger 
are  not  the  only  ones,  in  which  reasonable  considera- 
tion pleads  for  dispensing  with  immersion.  In  the  midst 
of  the  dark  ages,  at  the  very  midnight  of  superstition 
about  rites  and  forms,  Dims  Scotus,  the  celebrated 
metaphysical  theologian  (fl.  1260),  saw  and  felt  this. 

"A  minister,"  says  he,  "may  be  excused  from  trine 
immersion;  for  example,  in  case  a  minister  should  be 
feeble  as  to  strength,  et  sit  unus  magnus  rusticus,  and 
there  should  be  a  huge  country  felloio  to  be  baptized,  whom 
he  could  neither  plunge  in  nor  lift  out  ;•"  Comm.  in  IV. 
Sentent.  Dist.  3,  Ques.  4. 

The  quaintness  of  the  illustration  does  not  diminish 
aughfr  from  its  power,  in  respect  to  the  principle  which 
was  to  be  explained.  The  like  to  this  must  often 
occur ;  especially  if  the  most  ancient  practice  of  repair- 
ing to  rivers  and  pools  continue  to  be  maintained. 


182  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

Persons  often  need  to  be  baptized,  when  access  to 
water  abroad  is  difficult,  dangerous,  or  impossible. 
The  infirm  health  of  the  officiating  minister  forbids  the 
exposure  of  himself  in  this  way ;  the  feeble  state  of  the 
person  to  be  baptized  forbids  it ;  or  the  winter  season 
forbids  it.  In  all  the  northern  and  southern  parts  of 
the  globe,  reasons  of  climate  must  be  urgent  against 
the  practice  of  immersion  in  rivers  and  pools,  for  some 
nine  months  in  the  year.  On  the  sick  bed,  and  in  ex- 
tremis, there  are  a  multitude  of  cases  in  which  it  would 
cost  life.  Do  you  say :  Then  let  baptism  be  dispensed 
with  ?  So  would  I  answer,  although  on  a  ground  very 
different,  perhaps,  from  yours.  My  answer  would  rest 
on  the  ground,  that  no  external  ordinance  is  obligatory, 
when  it  becomes  dangerous  to  life  or  health.  The  great 
Lord  of  the  Sabbath  admits  works  of  necessity  and 
mercy,  i.  e.  such  services  as  are  necessary  to  life  and 
comfort,  to  be  done  on  his  holy  day.  He  has  said  that 
the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man.  So  was  baptism.  It 
was  not  instituted  to  injure,  destroy,  or  even  hazard 
life.  In  a  case  of  distressing  sickness  and  urgent 
danger,  we  may  say  in  respect  to  this  rite  or  any  other 
external  one,  Voluisse  est  habuisse,  i.  e.,  to  desire  it,  is 
accepted  in  lieu  of  its  being  administered.  So  would  I 
answer  in  all  cases  of  the  like  nature ;  but  you,  who 
plead  as  earnestly  for  the  rite  of  immersion,  as  the 
Roman  Catholics  do  for  baptism  by  the  hands  of  one 
of  their  own  priests,  you  would  say,  that  baptism  must 
be  dispensed  with  in  the  case  named  of  imminent 
danger  or  extreme  sickness,  because  the  proper  mode 
of  it  has  become  impracticable.     With  this  reason  I 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  183 

have  no  sympathy.  While  I  believe  that  the  Gospel 
represents  God  as  a  Spirit,  and  as  requiring  spiritual 
worship ;  and  that  these  two  truths  lie  at  the  very 
foundation  of  all  religious  service  whatever ;  I  never 
can  believe  that  the  mode  of  a  rite  merely  external,  can 
be  essential  in  any  degree.  I  cannot  submit  to  such  a 
yoke  of  bondage,  when  the  liberty  of  the  Gospel  is 
proffered. 

But  you  will  tell  me,  that  all  the  difficulties  in  respect 
to  baptism  abroad,  in  rivers  and  pools,  can  be  avoided 
by  the  building  of  a  baptistery,  such  as  the  ancient 
churches  had ;  where  the  hazard  even  of  cold  water 
becomes  unnecessary,  and  the  feeble  may  be  accommo- 
dated with  baths  adapted  in  temperature  to  their  state 
and  condition. 

I  cannot  admit,  however,  the  sufficiency  or  consist- 
ency of  your  reply,  on  the  grounds  which  jou  yourself 
maintain.  For,  in  the  first  place,  this  practice  of  build- 
ing baptisteries  is  well  known  to  be  an  innovation  upon 
the  more  ancient  usage  of  the  church.  In  the  time  of 
Justin  Martyr  there  were  no  such  accommodations  as 
these.  They  went  out  from  the  churches,  i.  e.,  the 
places  where  they  met,  to  rivers  and  pools,  as  he  tells 
us,  in  order  to  perform  the  rite.  Who  gave  liberty, 
then,  to  build  baptisteries?  In  what  part  of  the  New 
Testament  do  we  find  any  thing  concerning  them? 
What  right  have  you  now  to  depart  from  apostolic 
usage  ?  You  administer  rebuke  to  me,  because  I  do 
not  immerse;  and  this,  on  account  of  the  literal  obedi- 
ence which  (as  you  aver)  is  due  to  the  command  to 
baptize  all  nations.     Nothing,  then,  but  literally  doing 


184  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

as  Christ  and  the  apostles  did,  when  they  practiced  the 
rite  in  question,  can  be  literal  obedience.  But  where 
were  the  baptisteries  in  their  days  ?  May  I  not  charge 
you  now,  in  my  turn,  with  a  departure  from  the  sim- 
plicity and  significancy  of  baptism  in  pure  and  living, 
or  running  water,  as  the  rite  was  performed  in  the  days 
of  the  apostles  ?  On  the  ground  which  I  occupy,  this 
charge  amounts  to  an  accusation  of  no  very  grievous 
nature ;  on  yours,  it  must  be  placed  under  the  same 
category  with  your  accusation  against  me,  i.  e.,  it  must 
be  considered  as  a  grievous  departure  from  the  com- 
mand of  Christ.     There  is  no  avoiding  this  conclusion. 

I  go  farther  with  this  argument.  If  you  take  your 
stand  on  the  ancient  practice  of  the  churches  in  the 
days  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers,  and  charge  we  with 
departure  from  this ;  in  my  turn  I  have  the  like  charge 
to  make  against  you.  It  is  notorious,  and  admits  of  no 
contradiction,  that  baptism  in  those  days  of  immersion, 
was  administered  to  men,  women,  and  children,  in 
puris  naturalibus,  naked  as  Adam  and  Eve  before  their 
fall.  The  most  tender,  delicate,  and  modest  females, 
young  or  old,  could  obtain  no  exception,  where  im- 
mersion must  be  practiced.  This  practice  was  pleaded 
for  and  insisted  upon,  because  it  was  thought  to  be 
apostolic.  At  all  events,  it  began  very  early  in  the 
Christian  Church. 

No  wonder  now  that  Athanasius  complained,  that  in 
his  times  there  were  "  scandalous  occurrences  in  the 
baptistery."  To  tell  the  story  of  the  ancient  mode  of 
baptism,  is  enough  to  satisfy  any  one  that  his  allega- 
tions must  be  well  founded.     In  vain  did  the  churches 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  185 

seek  to  avoid  the  reproach  of  this  scandalous  practice, 
by  building  a  separate  baptistery  for  females,  or  by 
baptizing  them  separately.  Priests,  and  priests  only, 
in  any  common  case,  could  administer  the  rite.  The 
scandal  of  the  thing  still  remained.  Yea,  it  increased 
to  such  a  degree,  that  the  churches  were  at  length 
forced  into  a  proper  sense  of  decency ;  and  thus  they 
burst  asunder  the  bands  of  superstition. 

You  reject  this  usage,  because  you  believe  it  to  be 
an  indecorum.  But  on  the  ground  which  you  take, 
this  is  not  a  sufficient  reason.  Literal  conformity  to 
the  usage  of  the  ancient  churches  is  the  only  thing 
which  should  satisfy  a  conscience  like  yours. 

But  you  say,  "There  is  no  evidence  that  the  primi- 
tive mode  of  baptism  required  persons  to  be  divested 
of  all  their  garments."  I  grant  it ;  but  still,  there  is 
the  same  kind  of  evidence  as  proves  to  you  that  im- 
mersion was  the  only  apostolic  mode  of  baptism,  viz., 
the  universal  usage  of  the  ancient  churches.  Your 
main  reason  for  believing  that  fia-mifa  means  immer- 
sion, must  depend,  after  all,  on  the  exegesis  of  the 
fathers  and  the  ancient  churches.  New  Testament 
usage  of  the  word,  in  cases  not  relevant  to  this  rite, 
clearly  does  not  entitle  you  to  such  a  conclusion  with 
any  confidence.  If  you  say,  "The  classical  use  of  the 
word  abundantly  justifies  the  construction  I  put  upon 
it,"  my  reply  is,  that  classical  usage  can  never  be  very 
certain  in  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  New 
Testament.  Who  does  not  know  that  a  multitude  of 
Greek  words  here  receive  their  colouring  and  particular 
meanings  from  the  Hebrew,  and  not  from  the  Greek 


186  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

classics  ?  Do  i9eoc,  ovpav6g,odp£,  ixiariq,  diKatoavvr],  and 
other  words  almost  without  number,  exhibit  meanings 
which  conform  to  the  Greek  classics;  or  which,  in 
several  respects,  can  even  be  illustrated  by  them? 
Not  at  all.  Then,  how  can  you  be  over  confident 
in  the  application  of  the  classical  meaning  of  /3a7m£w, 
when  the  word  is  employed  in  relation  to  a  rite  that  is 
purely  Christian  ?  Such  a  confidence  is  indeed  com- 
mon ;  but  it  is  not  the  more  rational,  nor  the  more  be- 
coming, on  this  account. 

After  all,  then,  you  depend  for  the  exegesis  of 
Panri^o),  as  meaning  to  immerse,  mainly  on  the  practice 
and  the  views  of  the  early  churches.  If  this  be 
authoritative,  then  why  not  be  consistent,  and  carry  it 
through  ?  We  have  seen  that  Cyril  could  even  exult 
in  the  practice  of  divesting  the  candidates  for  baptism 
of  all  their  garments,  since  he  viewed  all  this  as  a  sig- 
nificant rite.  Why  not  follow  the  good  father  in  this, 
as  well  as  in  immersion  ? 

But  why  stop  even  here  ?  Can  it  not  be  shown  that 
the  ancient  churches  practiced  unction,  both  before  and 
after  baptism ;  and  that  the  sign  of  the  cross  was  a  part 
of  the  ceremonial ;  that  imposition  of  hands  immedi- 
ately succeeded  it ;  and  that  various  other  ceremonies 
were  sometimes  practiced  ?  It  can ;  and  if  usages  such 
as  these  become  authoritative,  because  the  ancient 
church  practiced  them,  then  the  Romish  Church  is 
nearest  to  Christian  duty,  who  retains  most  of  these 
usages.  On  the  like  ground,  the  whole  apparatus  of 
ancient  superstition  might  be  brought  in  upon  the 
churches  of  the  present  day.    When  we  once  admit  that 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  187 

all  of  an  external  nature  which  the  ancient  churches 
practiced,  is  binding  upon  us,  there  is  no  end  of  rites 
and  forms,  and  worthless  ceremonies,  which  serve  only 
to  delude  the  multitude,  and  to  deform  a  religion  which 
in  its  very  nature  is  truly  spiritual. 

Sed — manum  de  tabula.  I  have  written  enough  to 
explain  my  own  views  and  the  grounds  of  them,  if  not 
enough  to  satisfy  the  minds  of  others.  I  have  not  en- 
gaged in  this  exposition  with  a  willing  mind,  inasmuch 
as  I  almost  deem  it  a  loss  of  time  to  spend  so  much  of 
it  as  this  investigation  has  cost  me,  on  a  subject  that  so 
nearly  approaches  to  a  discussion  of  rites  and  forms. 
But  I  have  been  compelled,  as  it  were,  to  this  service. 
For  some  years  past,  I  have  received  letters  every  few 
weeks,  urging  me  to  answer  questions  relative  to  the 
mode  of  the  baptismal  rite,  and  other  things  connected 
with  it.  The  tenor  of  the  two  letters  standing  at  the 
head  of  this  article,  is  a  specimen  of  them.  I  must  beg 
my  friends,  one  and  all,  to  consider  me  as  having  now 
done  with  the  subject,  and  intending  to  write  no  more 
upon  it,  unless  indeed  a  new  and  pressing  exigency 
shall  occur,  that  I  cannot  at  all  anticipate.  No  efforts 
will  draw  me  into  a  controversy.  I  have  abstained,  as 
the  reader  will  perceive,  from  all  criticisms  on  contro- 
versial books,  and  all  polemical  attitudes  in  respect  to 
them.  I  have  expressed,  freely  and  fully,  my  own 
views.  My  Baptist  friends  will  not  be  displeased  at 
this  ;  for  thej,  most  of  all,  have  urged  me  to  do  so.  If 
my  sentiments  go  to  show  that  I  believe  them  to  be  in 
an  error,  in  regard  to  their  zeal  about  immersion,  they 
show  no  more  than  what  is  matter  of  fact.     I  do  believe 


188  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

that  this  is  the  sectarianism  of  their  denomination  ;  and, 
moreover,  that  it  does  not  accord  well,  in  this  particular, 
with  the  elevated  and  spiritual  views  which,  at  such,  a 
time  of  light  as  the  present,  ought  to  be  cherished. 

I  have  read  with  attention,  since  writing  most  of  the 
above  essay,  a  recent  publication  by  the  Rev.  A  Car- 
son, of  Edinburgh,  whose  zeal  is  overflowing  on  this 
subject.  I  have  found  in  it  many  useful  and  striking 
remarks  on  the  classical  use  of  fidirrco  and  Banri^o,  and 
the  distinction  made  between  them  by  classical  usage. 
Already,  however,  had  I  anticipated  most  of  this,  by  my 
own  researches  ;  and  now  I  see  no  occasion  to  change 
what  I  had  before  written.  I  have  taken  some  five  or 
six  examples  of  the  use  of  (3dnro  and  (ia-nri^  from  Mr. 
C,  in  reviewing  my  work  for  the  press  ;  but  I  have  not 
once  attempted  to  controvert  him. 

Mr.  Carson  lays  down  some  very  adventurous  posi- 
tions, in  respect  to  one  meaning,  and  one  only,  of  words ; 
which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  every  lexicon  on  earth  contra- 
dicts, and  always  must  contradict.  His  book  is  not 
destitute  of  evidence  that  he  has  learning  and  acute- 
ness.  lie  sometimes  professes  much  liberal  feeling. 
But  withal  he  lias  so  many  adventurous  philogical  posi- 
tions ;  he  occasionally  makes  such  high  and  exclusive 
claims  to  pure  Christianity,  on  the  ground  of  an  external 
rite;  he  sometimes  utters  such  anathemas  against  his 
opponents;  and,  joined  with  this,  his  book  is  often 
filled  with  so  much  levity,  and  so  many  attempts  at 
witticism  and  sarcasm,  that  I  am  spontaneously  led  to 
ask,  "What  can  be  the  tendency  of  such  discussion, 
except  to  break  asunder  the  bands  of  brotherhood  ? 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  189 

If  he  rightly  represents  his  opponents,  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted that  he  was  at  least  led  into  temptation.  That- 
Dr.  Ewing  should  gravely  proffer  to  the  public,  the 
word  pop  as  a  translation  of  (3aTTTi%u>,  might  tempt  to 
sarcasm  a  graver  man  than  Mr.  Carson.  But  what  is 
to  become  of  charity,  kind  feeling,  and  truth,  in  the 
midst  of  such  controversy  as  this  ? 

But  it  is  no  part  of  my  object  to  write  reviews,  or 
make  strictures  upon  the  performances  of  other.  Those 
who  seek  to  promote  kind  and  brotherly  feeling,  rather 
than  to  obtain  victories  in  a  dispute,  will  be  grieved  at 
reading  any  thing  of  this  nature,  come  from  whom  it 
may,  or  however  it  may  be  recommended  by  learning 
or  acuteness. 

For  myself,  I  have  not  the  least  difficulty  with  any 
man  or,  men,  who  prefer  immersion  to  other  methods 
of  baptism.  I  never  can  contend  with  any  one  about 
this,  except  so  far  as  to  vindicate  myself  for  not  believ- 
ing in  the  necessity  of  this  mode.  This  I  have  now 
done — I  would  hope,  not  in  a  sectarian  way.  If  I  have 
felt  obliged  to  speak  freely,  on  the  point  of  sectarian 
feeling,  my  brethren  will  forgive  this,  who  have  urged 
upon  me  fully  to  declare  myself.  I  do  not  love  them 
any  the  less,  because  they  are  Baptists ;  and  I  would 
hope  they  will  permit  me  still  to  believe  in  other  modes 
of  baptism  than  immersion,  without  regarding  me,  on 
their  part,  as  guilty  of  so  great  a  crime  as  Mr.  Carson 
charges  on  his  opponents. 

On  the  subject  of  infant-baptism  I  have  said  nothing. 
The  present  occasion  did  not  call  for  it ;  and  I  have  no 


190  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

wish  or  intention  to  enter  into  the  controversy  respect- 
ing it.  I  have  only  to  say,  that  I  believe  in  both  the 
propriety  and  expediency  of  the  rite  thus  administered ; 
and  therefore  accede  to  it  ex  auimo.  Commands,  or 
plain  and  certain  examples,  in  the  New  Testament  re- 
lative to  it,  I  do  not  find.  Nor,  with  my  views  of  it, 
do  I  need  them.  If  the  subject  had  respect  to  what  is 
fundamental  or  essential  in  Christianity,  then  I  must 
find  either  the  one  or  the  other,  in  order  to  justify 
adopting  or  practicing  it.  But  as  the  case  now  is,  and 
the  rite  itself  is  but  an  external  rite ;  the  general  anal- 
ogy of  the  ancient  dispensation ;  the  enlargement  of 
privilege  under  the  Gospel ;  the  silence  of  the  New 
Testament  on  the  subject  of  receiving  children  into  a 
special  relation  to  the  church  by  the  baptismal  rite, 
which  shows,  at  least,  that  there  was  no  dispute  in 
early  ages  relative  to  this  matter ;  the  certainty  that  in 
Tertullian's  day  the  practice  Avas  general ;  all  these 
considerations  put  together — united  with  the  conviction 
that  baptism  is  symbol  and  dedication,  and  may  be  so 
in  the  case  of  infants  as  well  as  adults ;  and  that  it 
brings  parents  and  children  into  a  peculiar  relation  to 
the  church  and  under  peculiarly  recognized  obligation 
— serve  to  satisfy  me  fully,  that  the  practice  may  be, 
and  should  be,  continued.  My  friends  will  be  con- 
tented, I  would  hope,  with  this  avowal,  without  an 
effort  to  draw  me  into  dispute.  It  is  my  full  purpose 
not  to  dispute  on  this  point.  The  sentiments  of  the 
Baptists,  in  relation  to  this  subject,  are  no  obstacle  to 
ray  kind  feelings  towards  them.  If  their  views  are 
erroneous,  still  they  are  much  better  than  the  views  of 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  191 

those  who  practice  this  rite  promiscuously,  without  any 
regard  to  the  character  of  those  who  offer  their  children 
in  baptism. 

I  have  only  to  add,  that  it  is  my  earnest  hope  and 
prayer,  that  the  time  may  speedily  come,  when  all  who 
love  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  cease  to  dispute  about  rites 
and  forms,  and  shall  believe  that  they  have  "  one 
Lord,  one  faith,  and  one  baptism"  although  the  external 
mode  of  this  latter  ordinance  may  not  be  the  same  in 
all  the  churches.  Why  should  there  be  any  more 
jealousy  on  this  subject,  than  there  is  in  respect  to  the 
various  modes  and  forms  of  administering  and  partak- 
ing of  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 

My  correspondents  whose  letters  I  have  printed  at 
the  commencement  of  this  discussion,  will  at  least  feel 
themselves  entitled  to  a  word  in  particular.  This  I 
may  add,  without  occupying  much  time. 

My  missionary  Brethren  will  now  perceive,  that  my 
opinion  must  of  couse  be,  in  accordance  with  the  prin- 
ciples above  developed,  that  they  should  render  the 
Greek  fiaTrrifa  inthe  same  way  as  our  English  version 
and  the  Vulgate  have  done,  viz.,  by  retaining  the  word 
ftanrl^G)  and  merely  giving  it  a  form  that  will  render  it 
analogous  to  other  verbs  in  the  language  to  which  it  is 
transferred.  In  doing  this,  they  are  still  at  full  liberty 
to  explain  to  their  hearers  the  meaning  of  the  word,  ac- 
cording to  the  views  of  it  which  they  entertain  ;  while, 
at  the  same  time,  they  free  themselves  from  the  charge 
of  having  made  a  sectarian  translation. 

In  regard  to  the  third  question  they  put,  which  re- 


192  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

spects  the  words  in  Acts  19  :  5,  I  can  hardly  refrain 
from  expressing  my  astonishment,  that  a  doubt  should 
ever  have  arisen,  whether  these  are  the  words  of  Paul, 
or  of  Luke  the  historian.  Yet  no  less  a  critic  than  Beza 
not  only  suggests  this,  but  vehemently  and  confidently 
maintains  that  they  are  the  words  of  Paul.  His  argu- 
ments are  the  following : — 

1.  That  6£  in  v.  5  corresponds  to  fiev  in  v.  4,  and 
that  both  these  verses  must  of  necessity  belong  to  the 
words  of  Paul,  for  they  must  be  corresponding  parts 
of  one  and  same  sentence  or  declaration.  The  answer 
to  this  is  :  (1)  That  \iiv  on  which  Beza  places  so  much 
reliance,  is  a  reading  of  a  suspicious  character,  and  is 
so  marked  by  Knapp  in  his  New  Testament.  (2)  Mev 
is  often  used  absolutely,  i.  e.,  alone,  or  without  any  6e 
following  it,  in  an  apodosis ;  e.  g.  Acts  1:1;  Col.  2 :  23  ; 
Eom.  1:8;  Heb.  12:9;  Kom.  3  :  2 ;  1  Cor.  11:18; 
Kom.  11 :  13  ;  2  Cor.  12  :  12  ;  1  Thess.  2  :  18  ;  Acts 
26  :  9  ;  Eom.  7 :  12  ;  10  : 1 ;  Acts  28  :  22,  etc.,  etc.,  and 
in  the  same  way  in  the  Septuagint,  and  the  Greek 
classics  also.  Beza  was  too  good  a  scholar  not  to  know 
this  ;  but  his  zeal  against  the  Anabaptists  misled  him. 
And  even  if  fiev  here  be  considered  as  belonging  to  the 
protasis  of  a  sentence,  and  therefore  requiring  de  to 
follow  it ;  yet  the  <5e  which  usually  succeeds  the  pro- 
tasis, is  not  of  necessity  always  expressed.  The  apo- 
dosis, if  any  is  to  be  supposed,  may,  in  the  present  case, 
easily  be  made  out:  "John,  indeed,  baptized  the  baptism 
of  repentance,  etc.  .  .  .  but  Jesus  in  a  different  wav, 
i.  e.,  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  In  the  same  way,  \iev  it- 
self is  often  omitted  in  the  protasis,  while  6e  stands  in 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  193 

the  apodosis  ;  e.  g.,  James  2:11;  1  Cor.  4  :  12  ;  Phil. 
1 :  18  ;  1  Pet.  2 :  14.  (3)  As  in  v.  5,  I  take  to  be  sim- 
ply the  usual  continuative  of  narration,  employed  times 
-without  number  when  /xtV  does  not  precede  it,  both  in 
sacred  and  profane  -writings  ;   see  Bretschn.  Lex.  6£  3. 

2.  Beza  is  evidently  moved  to  his  criticism,  by  the 
doctrine  of  the  Anabaptists  of  his  day,  who  strenuously 
insisted  on  rebaptizing  those  who  had  been  baptized 
only  in  infancy.  He  seems  to  be  jealous  for  the  honour 
of  John's  baptism,  and  wishes  to  make  it  out,  that 
Jesus,  being  baptized  by  John,  received  in  fact  the 
same  baptism  as  that  of  Christians.  But  what  is  all 
this  to  the  purpose  of  philology  t  I  might  say,  What 
is  it  to  the  purpose  of  theology  ?  For  why  should 
baptism  into  a  mere  preparatory  state  for  the  Messiah's 
kingdom,  be  the  same  thing  as  baptism  into  that  king- 
dom itself?  And  what  after  all  can  be  more  probable, 
than  that,  of  the  three  thousand  baptized  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  many  had  been  baptized  by  John  ? 

Against  all  this  on  the  part  of  Beza,  lie  some  in- 
superable objections  in  the  text  itself  of  Acts  19  :  4 — 6. 
If  Beza  is  correct,  then,  according  to  v.  5,  John  baptized 
into  the  name  of  Christ;  a  statement  no  where  made  in 
the  sacred  records ;  and  one  which  by  implication  is 
contradicted,  as  well  by  the  nature  of  his  baptism,  as 
by  the  manner  of  the  narration  of  the  sacred  writers, 
and  the  Phraseology  respecting  John's  baptism  which 
they  employ,  and  which  Paul  here  employs  in  v.  4. 
Moreover,  if  v.  5  contain  the  words  of  Paul,  and  relates 
to  baptism  as  performed  by  John,  then  does  it  follow 
of  necessity,  by  v.  6,  that  Paul  was  present  when  John 
9 


194  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

baptized,  and  that  lie  laid  his  hands  upon  John's  dis- 
ciples, and  communicated  to  them  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  supposition  not  only  contradicts  fact,  but  is  in- 
volved in  the  additional  difficulty  of  contradicting  what 
John's  disciples  are  here  represented  as  saying  in  v.  8, 
viz.,  "that  they  had  not  so  much  as  heard,  whether 
there  be  any  Holy  Ghost."  All  this  contradiction,  I 
say,  follows  from  Beza's  supposition  ;  for  av-olc  in  v.  6 
inevitably  relates  to  the  persons  who  are  mentioned  in 
v.  5  as  being  baptized.  The  sacred  writer  says,  in 
terms  that  are  not  capable  of  any  ambiguity,  that  Paul 
laid  his  hands  on  the  same  persons  who  were  baptized, 
and  communicated  to  them  the  Holy  Ghost.  Of  all 
this  Beza  has  taken  no  notice.  As  to  rebaptizing  ;  it  is 
one  thing  to  repeat  Christian  baptism,  and  another  to 
perform  this  rite  where  it  has  never  been  performed. 
Being  baptized  into  an  initiatory  dispensation,  is  not 
being  baptized  into  one  that  is  established  and  com- 
pleted, and  to  which  the  first  was  merely  preparatory. 

In  regard  to  the  first  question  of  the  missionary 
Brethren  respecting  1  John  5 :  7,  I  have  only  to  say, 
that  there  is  an  overwhelming  mass  of  critical  evidence 
against  the  genuineness  of  it,  as  the  state  of  the  matter 
now  is ;  and  yet  there  are  some  very  singular  evi- 
dences, that  the  reading  in  question  was  early  in  the 
copies  of  some  of  the  western  churches.  The  path  of 
safety  is  to  insert  it,  but  to  include  it  in  brackets,  and 
mark  it  as  probably  spurious.  More  or  less  than  this, 
the  present  state  of  critical  knowledge  respecting  it 
does  not  seem  to  permit  us  to  do. 

In  regard  to  my  anonymous  correspondent,  he  will 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  195 

see,  by  tlie  perusal  of  my  disquisition,  that  I  differ 
widely  from  his  mode  of  reasoning  about  external  rites. 
My  mode  is  thus  :  What  is  external  merely,  never  can 
be  essential  to  a  religion  which  is  truly  spiritual.  But, 
so  far  as  external  rites  belong  to  the  costume  of  religion, 
they  are  valuable  only  for  the  instruction  which  they 
convey,  i.  e.,  the  symbols  which  they  present,  and  which 
are  significant  of  important  truth.  No  mystical  power 
of  opus  operatum  can  be  allowed  by  true  Protestants. 
But  an  external  rite,  to  all  intents  and  purposes  of  any 
possible  consequence,  is  essentially  preserved  or  per- 
formed, lohen  its  significance  is  essentially  kept  up.  This 
is  done  by  immersion,  affusion,  or  sprinkling  of  water 
in  baptism.  The  Old  Testament  and  the  New  stamp 
all  these  methods  with  an  indelible  impression  of 
genuineness  as  to  such  signiflcancy.  What  God  has 
thus  sanctioned,  let  us  not  seem  to  make  light  of. 

My  belief  is,  that  we  do  obey  the  command  to  baptize, 
when  we  do  it  by  affusion  or  sprinkling ;  that  the  mere 
mode  of  applying  water  cannot  possibly  make  any  dif- 
ference in  the  case;  that  he  who  maintains  the  con- 
trary, if  consistent  with  himself,  should  go  over  to  the 
opus  operatum  of  the  Eoman  Catholics ;  that  on  such 
excessive  attachment  to  the  mere  externals  of  religion, 
are  justly  chargeable  the  divisions  and  feuds  of  Chris- 
tians in  relation  to  the  mode  of  baptism  ;  and  that  the 
church  never  can  have  peace,  until  men  will  cease  from 
the  spirit  of  contention  about  matters  of  costume  in  re- 
ligion, and  leave  every  one  to  his  own  choice  in  this 
respect.  My  correspondent  will,  of  course,  see  that  I 
accede  to  no  part  of  his  arguments.     I  verily  believe 


196  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

them  to  be  founded  in  altogether  erroneous  views  of 
the  nature  and  value  of  external  rites ;  and  have  no 
apprehension,  that  if  I  am  so  haj)py  as  ever  to  attain  to 
a  place  among  the  blessed  of  another  world,  I  shall 
lose  any  part  of  the  honour  or  glory  of  that  world,  be- 
cause I  have  fully  believed  and  taught  here,  that  God 
is  A  Spirit,  and  that  those  who  worship  him  must  worship 
him  in  spirit  and  in  truth  ;  and  have  resisted  all  efforts 
to  lead  men  to  trust  in  the  manner  of  any  external 
ordinances.  "  Circumcision  is  nothing  ;  and  uncircum- 
cision  is  nothing."  "  The  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit 
maketh  alive."  A  view  such  as  my  correspondent  has, 
ought  to  carry  him,  as  it  did  Constantine,  to  a  belief, 
that  he  can  be  lawfully  baptized  only  in  the  Jordan, 
because  Jesus  was  there  baptized.  How  can  consist- 
ency stop  short  of  this  ? 

Has  my  concealed  friend  never  read  in  2  Chron. 
30  :  18-20,  that,  when  the  great  multitude  of  Israel 
assembled  at  Jerusalem,  according  to  the  invitation  of 
King  Hezekiah,  in  order  to  keep  the  feast  of  the  pass- 
over,  "  many  in  the  congregation  were  not  sanctified," 
i.  e.,  were  not  clean  recording  to  the  requisitions  of  the 
Levitical  law ;  moreover,  that  a  multitude  of  people 
....  who  had  not  cleansed  themselves,  did  not  eat  of 
the  passover  otherwise  than  was  written?"  And  what 
did  this  good  king  in  respect  to  them  ?  Did  he  ex- 
communicate them,  or  refuse  to  keep  the  passover  with 
them?  Neither;  but  "he  prayed  for  them,  saying, 
The  good  Lord  pardon  every  one  that  prepareth  his 
heart  to  seek  God,  the  Lord  God  of  his  fathers,  though 
he  be  not  cleansed  according  to  the  purification  of  the 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  197 

sanctuary  I"  And  what  was  the  result  ?  Did  such  a 
prayer  come  up  before  the  throne  of  mercy  with  accept- 
ance ?  It  did ;  "  the  Lord  hearkened  to  Hezekiah, 
and  healed  the  people." 

And  is  not  this  fraught  with  instruction,  as  to  the 
real  value  which  the  Bible  sets  upon  externals  ?  It 
does  seem  to  me  to  be  so  ;  and  I  wish  my  brethren  who 
bar  up  their  communion-table  against  all  who  have 
not  been  immersed  might  study  such  passages  with 
more  attention.  That  distinguished  man  among  them, 
whose  sun  has  recently  gone  down,  although  its  beams 
still  illuminate  the  whole  horizon,  studied  and  felt  the 
power  of  such  an  example  as  Hezekiah  set.  The  love 
of  Christ  was  a  passport  to  communion  at  his  table,  and 
to  the  fraternal  confidence  of  his  benevolent  heart. 
Blessings  will  rest,  as  I  believe,  on  the  head  of  those 
magnanimous  brethren  of  his  denomination  who  follow 
his  example  of  Christian  liberality.  It  is,  indeed,  a 
serious  responsibility  that  we  take  upon  ourselves, 
when  we  say,  in  the  midst  of  all  the  light  which  the 
nineteenth  century  sheds  around  us,  "I  allow  you  to 
be  a  true  disciple  of  Jesus ;  I  hope  and  believe  you 
have  been  born  of  the  Spirit ;  but  I  cannot  sit  down 
with  you  at  the  feast  of  Jesus'  dying  love,  because 
water  has  not  been  applied  to  you  in  the  same  manner 
as  it  has  to  me."  Thus  did  not  Hezekiah  ;  and  thus, 
those  who  resemble  him  in  the  temper  of  their  souls,  I 
must  hope  and  believe,  will  not  much  longer  do.  It  is 
too  late.  The  Spirit  will  triumph  at  last  over  the 
flesh ;  the  love  of  God,  and  of  fellow-Christians  re- 
deemed bv  a  Saviour's  blood,  will  burst  asunder  the 


198  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

manacles  of  rites  and  forms,  and  dispel  the  charms  of 
sectarian  persuasives ;  and  there  will  yet  be,  in  our 
American  churches,  "  one  Lord,  and  one  faith ;"  yea, 
and  "  one  baptism"  also,  inasmuch  as  variety  of  mode 
will  no  longer  be  regarded  as  infringing  upon  the  unity 
of  this  rite.  Yes,  those  who  have  been  sprinkled  by 
Jesus'  blood,  and  sanctified  by  his  Spirit,  will  yet  be 
one  in  him,  as  he  prayed  they  might  be,  in  his  last  fer- 
vent supplication  for  them.  The  Lord  hasten  these 
blessed  things  in  their  time  ! 

My  correspondent  will  forgive  me  for  speaking  thus 
freely.  The  occasion  demands  it.  Those  who  are 
ready  to  break  the  church  in  pieces,  by  contending  for 
rites  and  forms,  seem  to  me  not  well  entitled  to  take 
the  position,  that  others  are  chargeable  with  this  who 
will  not  succumb  to  such  doctrines.  For  one,  I  be- 
lieve that  the  liberty  of  Christ  entitles  us  to  be  free 
from  a  spirit  of  zeal  for  externals ;  nor  do  I  think  it 
probable  that  the  churches  in  general  will  ever  be  en- 
tangled again  in  such  a  yoke  of  bondage. 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  199 


ANOTHER  VIEW  OF  THE  IMPORTANCE  OF 
LITERAL  OBEDIENCE. 

We  come  now  to  a  point  in  this  discussion,  which  deserves 
the  serious  and  prayerful  attention  of  every  professed  fol- 
lower of  Christ.  If  obedience  to  the  Saviour's  commands 
is  the. acknowledged  test  of  discipleship,  and  the  evidence  of 
love  to  him,  it  certainly  becomes  us  to  pause  and  consider, 
before  we  adopt  a  position  that  leads  us  to  think  or  speak 
lightly  of  his  institutions.  Professor  Stuart  frankly  admits 
that  baptizo  in  the  New  Testament,  when  applied  to  the 
rite  of  baptism,  does  in  all  probability  involve  the  idea  that 
the  rite  was  usually  performed  by  immersion,  and  he  finds 
nothing  in  the  circumstances  that  absolutely  forbids  the  con- 
clusion that  immersion  was  uniformly  adhered  to ;  he  fully 
concedes  that  the  churches  immediately  after  the  apostolic 
age,  for  several  centuries,  plainly  construed  the  word  as 
meaning  immersion,  and  that  the  Greek  Fathers  and  the 
Latin  ones  who  were  familiar  with  the  Greek,  must  unde- 
niably have  understood  its  meaning ;  and  yet  he  supposes, 
that  although  it  were  even  demonstrably  certain  that  baptizo 
means  only  to  immerse,  and  that  the  apostles  uniformly 
practiced  immersion,  it  nevertheless  would  not  follow  that 
we  must  adhere  to  the  original  ceremony.  "  He  is  not  at 
all  concerned  in  what  way  the  result  of  the  inquiry  may 
come*  out  in  respect  to  the  original  mode  of  baptism  ;  for  the 
external  mode  of  an  external  rite,  never  can,  with  his  present 
views  of  Christianity,  become  to  him  a  matter  of  any  pecu- 
liar interest,  in  any  other  point  of  view  than  merely  that,  of 
a  historical  fact."  Adopting  the  words  of  Calvin  in  his 
Institutes,  for.  c.  15,  §  19,  he  says  :  "  It  is  of  no  consequence 


200  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

at  all  whether  the  person  baptized  is  totally  immersed,  or 
whether  he  is  merely  sprinkled  by  an  affusion  of  water. 
This  should  be  a  matter  of  choice  to  the  churches  in  different 
regions ;  although  the  .word  baptizo  signifies  to  immerse, 
and  the  rite  of  immersion  was  practiced  by  the  ancient 
church.  He  does  not  then  attempt  the  defence  of  sprink- 
ling, on  the  ground  that  such  a  practice  receives  the  least 
countenance  either  from  the  meaning  of  the  original  word, 
or  from  apostolic  precedent.  He  rests  the  argument  on  what 
he  supposes  is  a  surer  basis  than  either,  viz.,  the  nature  of 
the  institution.  Baptism  is  an  outward  ceremony  ;  and,  there- 
fore,  he  contends  that  it  is  no  part  of  real  religion,  but  a 
mere  circumstance  of  religion,  and  that,  consequently,  it  can 
be  of  no  importance  to  preserve  it  in  its  original  form. 

"  The  rite  in  question,"  he  says  "  is  merely  external.  *  * 
*  *  *  Whenever  an  enlightened  Christian  wishes  to 
make  the  inquiry,  what  is  essential  to  his  religion,  should  he 
not  instinctively  open  his  Bible  at  John  iv.,  and  there  read 
thus :  "  Believe  me,  the  hour  cometh,  when  ye  shall  worship 
the  Father,  neither  in  this  mountain  nor  yet  at  Jerusalem. 
The  hour  cometh,  and  now  is,  when  the  true  worshippers 
shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth;  for  the 
Father  seeketh  such  to  worship  him.  God  is  a  Spirit,  and 
they  that  worship  him  must  worship  him  "  in  spirit  and  in 
truth."  "  Here,"  says  Professor  Stuart,  "is  the  very  foun- 
dation principle  of  all  Christian  and  all  acceptable  worship. 
God  who  is  himself  a  Spirit,  requires  the  homage  of  our  spirits. 
All  else  is  nothing  while  this  is  withheld  ;  and  when  this  is 
given,  all  else  is  circumstance,  not  essence."  Christ  unques- 
tionably meant  here  to  contrast  the  ancient  and  the  new  dis- 
pensations ;  observing  that  the  true  worshippers  should 
hereafter  worship  the  Father,  not  before  the  symbol  of  his 
glory  in  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  but  in  every  place  wher- 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  201 

ever  he  is  spiritually  present ;  and  not  as  formerly,  with 
Jewish  rites  and  forms,  but  in  the  spirit  and  truth  of  those 
ancient  types  and  shadows.  But  this  by  no  means  implies, 
either  that  all  external  worship  was  to  be  abolished,  or  that 
it  was  to  be  lightly  esteemed.  Christ  and  the  gospel  are 
the  "  spirit  and  truth,"  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  ancient 
economy;  and  he  that  approaches  God  through  the  Mediator, 
whether  it  be  with  the  homage  of  his  spirit,  or  in  the  out- 
ward institutions  of  Christianity,  does  in  the  fullest  sense 
worship  in  the  spirit  and  truth  of  that  dispensation.  But  to 
explain  Christ's  words  in  this  place,  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
diminish  the  value  and  importance  of  baptism  and  the  com- 
munion, of  prayer  and  praise,  or  of  any  of  the  instituted 
forms  of  Christian  worship,  is  to  make  Christ,  in  one  part  of 
his  word,  set  aside  his  institutions  and  his  own  authority  in 
other  parts  of  his  word.  This  is  to  interpret  Scripture  in 
the  true  spirit  of  the  ancient  Pharisees.  They  taught  that  a 
man  might  make  a  '•'  corban  of  his  property,"  i.  e.,  consecrate 
it,  under  pretence  of  honouring  God,  and  after  that  be  free 
from  the  obligation  to  honour  or  support  his  parents.  This 
was  making  the  word  of  God  of  no  effect  through  their  tradi- 
tion. It  was  interpreting  the  Scriptures  in  such  a  way  as  to 
make  one  part  annihilate  the  authority  of  another.  Any 
iriterpretation  of  any  passage,  which  sets  aside  the  plain  com- 
mands of  God  in  another  part  of  his  word,  must  be  incom- 
patible with  the  design  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  incompatible 
with  the  real  meaning  of  the  passage.  Professor  Stuart  in- 
troduces the  4th  of  John  to  disprove  the  necessity  of  obeying 
God  in  the  outward  institutions  of  religion.  "  God,"  he 
says,  "  requires  the  homage  of  our  spirits.  All  else  is 
nothing  while  this  is  withheld  ;  and  when  this  is  given,  all 
else  is  mere  circumstance,  not  essence."  It  is  true  that  if  we 
withhold  the  homage  of  our  spirits,  all  else  is  nothing ;  but 
9* 


202  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

it  is  not  true  that  spiritual  exercises  constitute  the  sum  total 
of  religion.  External  worship  is  as  really  a  part  of  religion 
as  spiritual  homage.  What  is  religion  but  obedience  to  the 
commands  of  God  ?  and  is  it  not  as  important  to  obey  God 
in  relation  to  external  duties,  as  in  regard  to  spirituality  ? 
Can  we  rebel  with  more  safety  in  one  case  than  in  the  other  ? 
What  higher  spirituality  can  there  be  than  to  love  God  ?  and 
will  not  love  prompt  us  to  obey  all  the  commands  of  God  ? 
"  Then  shall  I  not  be  ashamed,"  said  the  Psalmist,  "  when  I 
have  respect  unto  all  thy  commandments."  "  I  esteem  all 
thy  precepts  concerning  ;ill  things  to  be  right :  and  hate  every 
false  way."  So  if  we  are  truly  spiritual,  we  shall,  like  this 
pious  king,  have  respect  unto  all  the  commandments  of  God  ; 
and  shall  esteem  all  his  precepts  concerning  all  things  to  be 
right.  If  we  are  spiritual,  we  shall  sit,  like  Mary,  at  the  feet 
of  Jesus  to  hear  his  word.  If  he  claim  the  heart,  we  shall 
give  him  our  hearts ;  and  if  he  require  the  service  of  our 
bodies,  we  shall  cheerfully  yield  it.  What  have  we  to  do,  to 
distinguish  his  commands  into  essential  and  non-essential  ? 
Is  it  not  essential  to  obey  all  his  commands?  How  can  we 
know  what  value  he  puts  upon  any  service,  any  further  than 
he  tells  us  in  his  word  ?  Professor  Stuart  supposes  it  can- 
not be  essential  to  adhere  to  immersion,  because  it  is  an 
external  ceremony,  and.  provided  we  render  the  homage  of 
our  spirits,  all  external  worship  is  the  mere  circumstance,  not 
the  essence  of  religion.  If  external  duties  were  not  required, 
they  would  not  be  essential.  But  God  does  require  them ; 
and  yet  he  supposes  that  it  is  not  essential  to  obey  these 
commands,  provided  that  we  render  the  homage  of  our 
spirits.  But  is  it  a  supposablc.case,  that  we  can  obey  God 
in  regard  to  spiritual  duties,  and  at  the  same  time  deliber- 
ately disobey  him  in  regard  to  another  class  of  duties?  The 
position  is  self-evidently  absurd.     It  assumes  that  a  holy 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  203 

heart  may  exist  independently  of  a  holy  life.  As  well 
might  we  suppose  that  a  sweet  fountain  can  send  forth  bitter 
water,  or  a  good  tree  produce  bad  fruit.  The  real  Christian 
will  yield  to  the  authority  of  God  whenever  he  sees  it.  If  he 
is  convinced  that  God  requires  him  to  pray,  or  praise,  or  be 
immersed,  he  wall  submit.  If  a  duty  be  impracticable,  the 
command,  under  such  circumstances,  is  not  binding ;  and  I 
do  not  say  that  the  delinquent  may  not  find  forgiveness  in 
case  he  mistakes,  or  does  not  clearly  see  the  path  of  duty. 
But  if  one  stubbornly  rebells;  if  he  wilfully  disobeys  in 
regard  to  a  known  duty,  no  matter  whether  it  be  spiritual  or 
external,  he  cannot,  while  he  persists,  be  entitled  either  to 
the  name  of  a  Christian,  or  a  hope  of  heaven.  Does  the 
Scripture  lead  us  to  conclude  that  they  may  be  neglected 
with  impunity  1 

It  was  by  external  obedience,  and  not  by  spirituality 
merely,  that  the  integrity  of  our  first  parents  was  tested  at 
the  beginning  ;  and  the  curse  that  followed  the  transgression 
teaches  us  an  awful  lesson  on  the  danger  of  delinquency  in 
regard  to  any  positive  precept.  The  Jewish  feasts  and  Sab- 
baths, the  sacrifices  and  offerings,  were  external  institutions  ; 
yet  they  were  charged  in  the  most  solemn  manner  to  ob- 
serve the  whole  with  religious  scrupulosity  :  "  What  things 
soever  I  command  you,  observe  to  do  it :  thou  shalt  not  add 
thereto,  nor  diminish  from  it." 

It  was  in  regard  to  an  external  rite,  that  Nadab  and  Abihu 
sinned.  The  law  forbade  the  offering  of  strange  incense  before 
the  Lord  ;  but  they  probably  supposed  the  quality  of  the  fire 
was  a  mere  circumstance ;  that  the  whole  was  an  external 
rite,  and  the  "  mere  mode  of  an  external  rite  could  not  be 
essential ;"  and  so  ventured  to  transgress  the  positive  com- 
mand of  God.  The  result  was,  that  they  paid  for  their 
temerity  with  the  forfeiture  of  their  lives.     Immersion  is  not 


204  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

a  mode  of  baptism,  a  mere  circumstance  of  the  rite ;  it  is  the 
rite  itself;  but  if  it  were  a  mere  circumstance,  the  case  of 
Nadab  and  Abihu  would  show,  not  only  that  we  cannot  law- 
fully dispense  with  a  positive  institution,  but  that  when  the 
circumstances  of  a  rite  are  prescribed,  we  can  no  more  alter 
these,  than  we  can  remove  the  rite  itself.  Jehovah  will  be 
sanctified  in  them  that  come  nigh  him.  They  must  approach 
him  in  the  way  he  has  prescribed.  Judging,  then,  in  the 
light  of  the  Bible,  we  come  unavoidably  to  the  conclusion, 
that  the  institutions  of  religion  are  too  important  to  be  either 
neglected  or  altered,  without  incurring  the  displeasure  of 
God.  And  if  we  observe  the  design  of  baptism,  and  how 
constantly  the  apostles  insisted  upon  it  in  their  preaching,  as 
well  as  the  prominence  that  is  every  where  given  to  it  in  the 
New  Testament,  we  cannot  fail  to  see  that  a  peculiar  import- 
ance was  originally  attached  to  this  rite. 

Christ  in  the  commission  charged  the  apostles  to  go  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Accordingly,  we  find 
them  in  their  preaching  as  constantly  directing  the  attention 
of  their  hearers  to  the  duty  of  baptism,  as  to  that  of  faith  and 
repentance ;  and  obedience  was  yielded  to  the  one,  as  inva- 
riably as  to  the  other.  When  Peter's  hearers  were  pricked 
in  the  heart,  and  inquired  what  they  should  do,  he  exhorted 
them  to  repent  and  be  baptized ;  and  they  that  gladly  received 
the  word  were  baptized  that  very  day.  Philip,  at  Samaria, 
pursued  the  same  course :  for  it  is  said  that  when  they  be- 
lieved the  things  that  were  spoken  by  him,  they  were  bap- 
tized, both  men  and  women.  So  when  he  fell  in  with  the 
Ethiopian  eunuch,  he  improved  the  first  opportunity  he  had 
of  mentioning  the  duty,  not  of  repentance  and  faith,  but  of 
baptism ;  for  when  they  came  to  some  water,  the  euirtich 
exclaimed,  See,  here  is  water  !  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be 


CHRISTIAN  .BAPTISM.  205 

baptized  1  Of  course  the  eunuch  would  not  have  proposed 
to  receive  baptism,  if  Philip  had  not  first  informed  him  that 
this  was  the  instituted  method  of  professing  faith  in  Christ. 
When  Saul  was  converted,  Ananias  was  sent  to  instruct 
him  in  the  way  of  duty.  He  seems  to  have  been  the  first 
Christian  that  visited  him ;  and  he  at  the  first  interview 
exhorted  him  to  arise  and  be  baptized.  Peter,  in  the  first 
sermon  he  preached  to  the  Gentiles  at  the  house  of  Cornelius, 
urged  the  duty  of  baptism.  Lydia  appears  to  have  been  con- 
verted and  baptized  immediately  upon  the  very  first  sermon 
she  heard.  Of  course  the  apostles  must  have  directed  her 
attention  to  the  subject.  And  when  the  jailer  opened  his 
heart  to  hear  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  together  with  his 
household,  professed  faith  in  Christ,  the  apostles  did  not 
suppose  that  they  had  declared  to  them  the  whole  counsel 
of  God,  till  they  had  directed  them  to  be  baptized.  If,  there- 
fore, the  apostles  wherever  they  went,  invariably  preached 
the  necessity  of  baptism  as  a  branch  of  Christian  duty,  and  it 
was  as  invariably  submitted  to  by  all  who  cordially  received 
the  word,  how  can  we  draw  the  conclusion  that  the  ordinance 
is  of  little  consequence,  and  may  be  altered  or  omitted  alto- 
gether, as  convenience  or  fancy  may  dictate  1  We  do  not 
believe  that  external  rites  have  themselves  any  intrinsic  im- 
portance, that  is,  that  they  have  any  inherent  efficacy  of 
sunctification;  but  they  derive  their  importance  from  the 
consideration  that  God  has  enjoined  them ;  and  whether  we 
look  at  these  rites  in  general,  or  at  baptism  in  particular,  in 
the  light  in  which  they  are  presented  in  his  word,  they  appear 
evidently  too  important  to  be  either  neglected  or  lightly 
esteemed.  The  argument,  then,  that  we  may  lawfully  re- 
move or  alter  the  rite  of  baptism,  because  it  is  an  external 
ceremony,  is  not  sound.  If  Christ  has  enjoined  immersion, 
we  must  obey  him.     There  is  no  such  thing  as  reasoning 


206  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

away  the  obligation.  And  a  command  to  immerse,  can  be 
obeyed  in  no  other  way  than  by  immersion.  If  we  substitute 
sprinkling,  or  any  other  ceremony  in  its  stead,  we  add  the 
sin  of  presumption  to  that  of  disobedience. 

"  But,"  says  Professor  Stuart,  "  no  injunction  is  any  where 
given  in  the  New  Testament,  respecting  the  manner  in  which 
this  rite  shall  be  performed.  If  there  be  such  a  passage  let  it 
be  produced.     This  cannot  be  done." 

But  what  necessity  is  there  for  any  particular  injunction 
respecting  the  manner  of  the  rite  1  Would  it  be  possible  to 
describe  the  rite  more  definitely  than  it  is  described  by  the 
word  ?  If  it  has  not  been  conclusively  proved  that  baptizo 
signifies  to  immerse,  and  that  this  is  its  only  proper  and  legiti- 
mate meaning,  then  there  is  no  evidence  in  demonstration. 
When  they  were  required,  under  the  law,  to  sprinkle  the 
blood  and  water  upon  the  leprous  person,  and  to  pour  oil 
upon  his  head,  what  further  explanation  of  the  ceremony  did 
they  need  ?  The  words  pour  and  sprinkle  were  definite 
terms — so  definite  that  they  could  not  possibly  mistake  the 
nature  of  the  action.  Baptise  is  just  as  definite  in  its  mean- 
ing as  pour,  or  sprinkle  ;  and  if  we  are  guided  by  the  word, 
it  is  impossible  to  mistake  the  manner  of  the  rite.  But  that 
the  word  itself  does  "  in  all  probability"  signify  to  immerse, 
Professor  Stuart  "cheerfully  admits  ;"  he  denies,  however, 
that  it  should  be  taken  in  its  literal  sense.  To  admit  the 
literal  meaning  of  the  command  to  determine  the  manner 
of  the  rite,  he  thinks  would  prove  too  much ;  for  if  we  are 
bound  to  observe  literally  the  command  in  relation  to  bap- 
tism, he  supposes  it  will  follow  that  we  must  likewise  observe 
literally  the  command  in  relation  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 
"  At  the  original  institution  of  this  rite,"  he  observes,  "  they 
were  assembled  in  an  upper  room  ;  they  reclined  upon  a  sofa 
or  triclinium ;  they  celebrated  at  night ;  they  used  unleaven 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  207 

bread,  and  drank  red  wine ;  their  clothes  were  of  a  certain 
form.  In  a  word,  all  the  circumstances  of  the  occasion  were, 
in  some  respect  or  other,  different  from  those  which  now 
accompany  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Yet 
Jesus  gave  command  respecting  this  ordinance  in  the  follow- 
ing manner  :  '  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me .'  I  ask  now  all 
the  advocates  for  the  literal  sense  of  baptizo,  who  urge  upon 
the  churches  the  original  mode  of  this  rite,  why  they  do  not 
urge  upon  them  in  the  same  manner,  and  for  the  same  reason, 
the  literal  doing  of  what  Christ  commanded  as  to  the  sacra- 
ment 1  Why  do  you  not  plead  for  its  celebration  by  night ; 
and  this,  too,  in  a  reclining  posture,  in  an  upper  chamber,  with 
unleavened  bread,  with  the  dress,  furniture,  and  attendance 
that  originally  were  exhibited  %  You  regard  not  one  of  all 
these  circumstances ;  not  even  a  single  one.  How  then  do 
\ou  obey  the  command  of  Jesus,  this  do  in  remembrance  of 
me  ?  According  to  the  tenor  of  your  own  exegesis,  you  do 
not  obey  it ;  you  cannot,  while  you  do  not  literally  imitate 
all  these  particulars. 

It  is  true  that  both  commands  stand  upon  the  same  foot- 
ing, as  it  respects  the  principle  of  interpretation  ;  and  unques- 
tionably the  language  is  to  be  taken  in  its  literal  sense  in 
both  cases.  But  Professor  Stuart  supposes  that  all  the  cir- 
cumstances accompanying  the  first  celebration  were  embraced 
in  the  command,  This  do.  He  entirely  misapprehends  the 
Scripture  narrative.  The  Evangelist  states  that  when  Jesus 
instituted  the  communion,  "  he  took  bread  and  brake  it,  and 
gave  it  to  the  disciples,  saying,  This  is  my  body,  which  is 
given  for  you :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me."  (Luke 
xxii.  19.)  Paul,  alluding  to  this  transaction,  says,  "  The 
Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took 
bread,  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said, 
Take,  eat ;  *     *     *     *  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.    After 


208  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

the  same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup,  when  he  had  supped, 
saying,  This  cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood :  this  do 
ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.''''  (1  Cor. 
xi.  23-25.)  The  command  has  no  reference  whatever  to  the 
circumstances.  But  had  the  Saviour  commanded  us  to  cele- 
brate the  communion  in  an  upper  room,  with  unleavened 
bread,  and  habited  in  a  peculiar  dress,  it  would  be  just  as 
important  to  observe  these  circumstances,  as  to  participate 
of  bread  and  wine;  and  in  neglecting  them  we  should  as 
really  disobey  the  command,  as  if  we  were  to  omit  the  rite 
altogether.  All  that  we  are  commanded  to  do,  however,  is 
to  eat  bread,  and  drink  the  cup  ;  and  this  we  are  bound  to  do 
literally*     So  with  regard  to  baptism ;  the  command  re- 

*  Professor  Stuart  supposes  that,  in  case  that  bread  and  wine  could 
not  be  readily  obtained,  we  might  with  perfect  propriety  substitute 
any  of  the  usual  elements  of  nourishment  for  the  body  ;  that  we  might, 
for  instance,  in  case  of  necessity,  celebrate  the  commuuion  acceptably 
upon  fish  and  water.  Some  Pedobaptist  churches  have  recently  im- 
proved upon  this  suggestion,  and  actually  removed  the  wine  from  the 
communion  altogether,  substituting  water  in  all  cases.  Is  this  keep- 
ing the  feast  as  it  was  delivered  ?  Christ  caused  the  disciples  to  eat 
bread,  and  to  drink  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  i.  e.,  wine ;  and  he  com- 
manded them  To  do  this,  that  is,  to  eat  bread  and  drink  wine  repeat- 
edly, in  remembrance  of  him.  Does  this  mean  to  eat  fith  and  drink 
water?  Do  we  interpret  language  in  this  way  in  the  common  inter- 
course of  life?  If  a  son  ask  bread  of  his  father,  will  he  give  him  a 
stone?  Or  if  he  ask  for  afs/i,  will  he  give  him  a  serpent  ?  Why  not 
suppose,  then,  that  Chrict  means  as  he  says?  He  instituted  the  feast 
in  foresight  of  every  possible  exigency  ;  and  if  he  merely  designed 
that  we  should  make  use  ot  any  of  the  common  elements  of  nourish- 
ment, why  did  he  not  say  so  ?  Why  did  he  not  express  himself  intel- 
ligibly ?  How  can  the  Bible  be  called  a  revelation,  if  its  positive 
precepts,  which  are  delivered  in  the  plainest  and  most  unequivocal 
language,  may  be  made  to  mean  any  thing  we  choose  to  have  them 
mean?  Let  us  suppose  Joseph,  when  he  was  commanded  to  take 
Mary  and  the  young  child  and  flee  into  Egypt,  to  have  interpreted 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM.  209 

quires  us  to  be  immersed  ;  and  this  we  are  bound  to  observe 
literally.  As  to  circumstances,  as  whether  it  shall  be  per- 
formed in  the  morning  or  evening,  whether  it  shall  be 
accompanied  with  singing  or  praying,  &c,  they  are  not  im- 
portant, because  they  are  not  contemplated  in  the  command. 
The  advocates  for  the  "literal  sense  of  baptizo"  then,  who 
urge  upon  the  churches  the  "  original  mode  "  of  this  rite,  do 
urge  upon  them  in  the  same  manner,  and  for  the  same  rea- 
son, "  the  literal  doing  of  what  Christ  has  commanded,  as  to 
the  communion."  We  urge  literal  obedience  to  the  com- 
mand of  Christ  in  both  cases;  and  in  both  cases  we  are  sus- 
tained by  the  uniform  practice  of  the  apostles. 

"  But,"  says  Professor  Stuart,  "  an  external  rite,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  of  any  possible  consequence,  is  essen- 
tially preserved  or  performed,  ivhen  its  significance  is  essen- 
tially kept  up.     Baptism  is  significant  of  purification ;  and 

the  command  on  the  same  principle  that  is  proposed  to  be  adopted  in 
regard  to  baptism  and  the  communion  :  "  The  spirit  of  the  command 
only  requires  me  to  flee  from  the  reach  of  Herod  ;  the  place  is  a  mere 
circumstance ;  and  though  the  command  literally  requires  me  to  go 
into  Egypt,  yet  the  command  will  be  substantially  obeyed,  though  I  . 
go  into  Arabia."  On  this  principle  of  interpretation,  might  not 
Jonah  have  found  an  apology  for  fleeing  to  Tarshish,  when  he  was 
commanded  to  go  to  Nineveh  ?  The  command  literally  required  him 
to  go  to  Nineveh  ;  but  might  he  not  have  reasoned,  that  in  its  true 
spirit  it  only  meant  that  repentance  should  be  preached  to  siuners  ; 
that  there  were  wicked  people  in  Tarshish,  and  the  place  was  a  mere 
circwnst-tnce ;  therefore  the  command  might  be  substantially  obeyed 
by  going  to  the  latter  place  ?  Paul  received  a  specific  commission  to 
go  and  preach  among  the  Gentiles.  But  suppose  he  had  refused  to 
leave  Judea,  and  confined  his  labours  to  his  own  nation  ;  though  he 
would  have  been  preaching  the  gospel  and  doing  good,  as  well  as 
gratifying  the  excellent  feelings  of  his  heart  towards  his  brethren, 
would  Christ,  however,  have  considered  him  as  acting  in  obedience  to 
his  command?    Certainly  not. 


210  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

sprinkling  is  as  expressive  of  this  as  immersion.  Baptism, 
it  is  true,  is  sometimes,  though  seldom,  alluded  to  in  the  Scrip- 
ture as  an  emblem  of  purification  ;  but  this  is  not  the  main 
design  of  the  institution.  The  grand  idea  exhibited  in  bap- 
tism, is,  the  new  life  upon  which  the  subject  is  entered. 
There  is  not  a  more  important,  or  more  prominent  truth  in 
the  word  of  God,  than  that  men  must  be  entirely  transformed 
in  their  moral  character,  before  they  can  become  the  subjects 
of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  or  enter  the  realms  of  glory.  The 
Christian  is,  therefore,  emphatically  a  new  creature.  He  has 
been  born  again  ;  he  has  passed  from  death  to  life  :  and  it 
is  this  important  fact  in  his  experience — this  grand  feature 
in  his  moral  character,  that  is  designed  to  be  uniformly  ex- 
hibited in  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  And  immersion  in 
water,  by  which  the  subject  is  buried,  as  it  were,  in  a  grave, 
and  again  raised  out  of  it,  is  a  beautiful  and  impressive  em- 
blem of  this  fact.  It  represents,  in  a  striking  mariner,  our 
dying  to  sin,  and  coming  forth  again  to  a  new  life  of  holiness  ; 
or  that  complete  moral  change  by  which  we  are  qualified  to 
become  subjects  of  Christ's  kingdom,  children  of  God,  and 
heirs  of  heaven.  But  pouring  and  sprinkling  cannot  afford 
an  image  of  death  and  resurrection.  If,  therefore,  we  substi- 
tute either  of  these  ceremonies  for  immersion,  we  destroy  the 
significancy  of  the  rite,  and  defeat  the  main  design  of  the  in- 
stitution. But  suppose  we  admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that  purification  is  the  principal  thing,  or,  if  you  please, 
the  only  thing,  that  is  symbolized  by  baptism  ;  and  sup- 
pose we  admit,  too,  that  pouring  and  sprinkling  would  be 
just  as  significant  of  this  as  immersion  ;  yet  if  Christ  has 
not  left  it  to  our  choice,  but  has  expressly  designated  the 
emblem,  and  commanded  us  to  observe  immersion,  can 
we  lawfully  set  aside  the  symbol  he  has  selected,  and  sub- 
stitute one  of  our  own  choice  ?     Was  Moses  at  liberty  to 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  211 

cover  the  ark  of  the  testament  with  brass,  when  he  was  com- 
manded to  overlay  it  with  gold  ?  The  priest  was  required  to 
sprinkle  the  blood  upon  the  mercy-seat.  Would  he  have 
obeyed  the  command  in  case  he  had  poured  it  1  Such  articles 
as  had  been  defiled  by  coming  in  contact  with  unclean  rep- 
tiles, were  required  to  be  dipped  into  water ;  would  they  have 
been  considered  as  obeying  the  command  in  case  they  had 
merely  sprinkled  them  1  Certainly  they  would  not.  How, 
then,  can  we  be  considered  as  obeying  the  command  to  im- 
merse, when  we  merely  pour  or  sprinkle  water  on  the  can- 
didate 1  Professor  Stuart  supposes  that  we  should,  in  this  case, 
substantially  obey  the  command  ;  because,  though  we  do  not 
literally  perform  the  ceremony  that  is  required,  yet  we  do 
perforin  one  that  is  equally  significant.  But  this,  after  all,  is 
not  obeying  the  command.  It  is  not  doing  what  Christ  has 
required  us  to  do.  It  is  removing  his  institution  altogether, 
and  substituting  an  invention  of  our  own  in  its  place.  No 
matter  how  much*may  be  said  for  its  significance  or  usefulness. 
If  it  is  not  the  thing  Christ  has  commanded,  it  is  to  be  ranked 
with  the  traditions  and  doctrines  of  men.  Of  all  the  num- 
berless corruptions  which,  since  the  rise  of  Popery,  have  been 
foisted  into  the  worship  of  God,  none  were  ever  proposed 
as  avowed  innovations.  They  are  uniformly  baptized  with 
some  specious  name  of  significance  or  usefulness,  and  sup- 
ported by  some  plausible  argument  for  their  compatibility 
with  the  spirit,  if  not  with  the  letter  of  the  gospel.  We 
ought,  therefore,  to  be  extremely  cautious  about  receiving  as 
a  sacred  rite,  and  an  institution  of  Christ,  any  thing  that  is 
not  clearly  sanctioned  in  his  word.  Christ  as  a  Son,  having 
charge  of  the  New  Testament  Church,  has  been  faithful  in 
revealing  the  will  of  his  Father ;  and  as  disciples,  we  shall 
evince  our  love  to  him  by  submitting,  without  murmur- 
ing or  disputing,   to  his  institutions;    and  not   by   substi- 


212  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

tuting  our  own  inventions  in  the  place  of  the  revealed  will 
of  God. 

"  But,"  says  Professor  Stuart,  "I  ask  those  who  plead  for 
literal  conformity  in  mode  to  the  ancient  rite  of  baptism, 
how  they  dispose  of  the  ordinance  respecting  the  disciples' 
washing  each  other's  feet,  described  in  John,  chap.  xiii.  6  1 
Who  has  repealed  the  obligation  to  a  literal  conformity  with 
this  command  ]  You  will  say  it  is  the  spirit,  rather  than 
the  letter,  which  is  here  inculcated.  I  accede.  But  what  is 
the  case  in  respect  to  baptism  1  Will  nothing  but  the  letter 
do  here  ?  So  you  may  think  and  reason.  But  are  you  not 
entirely  inconsistent  with  yourself?"  To  this  it  is  suf- 
ficient to  reply,  that  every  act  of  brotherly  kindness  is  not 
necessarily  an  act  of  religious  worship.  The  washing  of 
each  other's  feet,  although  Professor  Stuart  styles  it  an  ordi- 
nance, was  not  enjoined  as  a  religious  institution — an  act  of 
homage  to  God — but  as  a  service  to  the  saints ;  and  can  it  be 
shown  that  we  are  not  bound  to  a  literal  conformity  to  this 
command,  whenever  such  an  act  would  be  a  real  service  to 
our  brethren  ? 

"  Personal  safety  and  convenience,"  says  Professor  Stuart, 
"  often  demand  that  immersion  should  be  dispensed  with. 
*  *  *  Persons  often  need  to  be  baptized,  when  access 
to  water  abroad  is  difficult,  dangerous,  or  impossible.  The 
infirm  health  of  the  officiating  minister  forbids  the  exposure 
of  himself  in  this  way ;  the  feeble  state  of  the  person  to  be 
baptized  forbids  it ;  or  the  winter  season  forbids  it.  In  all  the 
northern  and  southern  parts  of  the  globe,  reasons  of  climate 
must  be  urgent  against  the  practice  of  immersion  in  rivers 
and  pools  for  some  nine  months  in  the  year."  1  am  not 
aware  that  "  reasons  of  climate  "  interpose  any  serious  bar- 
rier to  immersion  in  any  habitable  part  of  the  world.  The 
Greek  Church  is  spread  over  an  extent  of  country  that  em- 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  213 

braces  every  variety  of  climate ;  and  they  have  always  found 
it  practicable  to  immerse  from  the  southern  provinces  of 
Greece  to  the  northern  extremities  of  the  Russian  Empire. 
True,  there  might  be  cases  where  immersion  would  be  im- 
practicable. But  what  then?  If  one  is  prevented  from 
receiving  baptism,  by  circumstances  that  are  beyond  his  con- 
trol, he  is  released  from  the  obligation.  Christ  does  not 
require  it  of  him.  But  if  Christ  does  not  require  it,  why 
should  he  be  anxious  to  invent  something  in  its  place  1  Let 
Romanists  contend  for  works  of  "  supererogation  ;"  but  let  us, 
as  Protestants,  deem  it  sufficient  to  do  what  is  commanded. 
Professor  Stuart  supposes,  however,  that  cases  of  extreme 
sickness  and  imminent  danger,  are  not  the  only  ones  in  which 
reasonable  consideration  pleads  for  dispensing  with  immer- 
sion ;  and  in  confirmation  of  his  own,  he  cites  the  opinion  of 
Dans  Scotus,the  celebrated  metaphysical  theologian  (fl.  1260), 
"who  says:  "A  minister  may  be  excused  from  trine  im- 
mersion, for  example,  in  case  he  should  be  feeble  as  to 
strength,  and  there  should  be  a  huge  country  fellow  to  be  bap- 
tized {sit  unus  magnus  rusticus),  whom  he  could  neither 
plunge  in  nor  lift  out." — Comm.  in  iv.  Sentent.  Dist.  3, 
Quest.  4.  This  would  indeed  be  a  sad  dilemma  for  both 
minister  and  candidate.  But  does  Professor  Stuart  present 
this  case  for  the  amusement  of  the  reader,  or  does  he 
seriously  think  that  cases  may  occur  where  a  minister,  on 
account  of  the  huge  size  of  the  candidate,  should  be  allowed 
so  far  to  depart  from  the  letter  of  the  command  as  to  sprinkle 
him  1  Professor  Stuart  is  really  serious.  "  The  like  to 
this,"  he  says,  "must  often  occur;  especially  if  the  most 
ancient  practice  of  repairing  to  rivers  and  pools  continue  to 
be  maintained."  But  must  not  cases  of  disparity  in  the  size 
of  the  minister  and  candidate  have  occurred  as  frequently  in 
ancient  times  as  at  the  present  dav?  and  if  this  were  such  a 


214  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

potent  objection  to  immersion,  why  did  not  the  ancients  plead 
for  a  dispensation  ?  Had  Professor  Stuart,  or  his  "  meta- 
physical theologian,"  dipped  a  little  into  natural  philosophy, 
it  must  have  occurred  to  him  that  whatever  a  person's  size 
may  be,  he  is  still  lighter  than  water,  and,  therefore,  when 
immersed,  naturally  rises  to  the  surface  independently  of 
any  effort  on  the  part  of  the  administrator.  It  is  a  prin- 
ciple in  hydrostatics,  that  every  body,  when  immersed  in  water, 
loses  so  much  of  its  weight  as  is  equal  to  the  weight  of  an  equal 
bulk  of  water  ;  that  is,  loses  about  sixty-two  pounds  to  every 
cubic  foot  of  water  displaced.  Therefore,  if  the  weight  of 
the  human  body  and  that  of  water  were  just  equal,  a  per- 
son under  water  would  lose  his  whole  weight;  that  is, 
his  weight  would  be  nothing.  But  being  about  one-ninth 
lighter  than  water,  he  displaces  more  by  one-ninth,  than 
what  is  equal  to  his  own  weight,  and  this  surplus  serves  to 
raise  him;  and  the  larger  the  person  the  greater  is  the  upward 
pressure.  It  requires,  therefore,  no  exertion  to  bring  the 
candidate  to  the  surface  ;  and  in  a  suitable  depth  of  water, 
whatever  be  his  size,  a  very  moderate  effort  is  sufficient  to 
raise  him  from  the  surface  to  an  erect  posture.  But  did 
not  Christ  foresee  every  possible  case  ?  Did  he  not  know 
who  were  to  be  the  administrators,  and  who  were  to  be  bap- 
tized 1  And  did  he  not,  in  foresight  of  all  these  circum- 
stances, command  his  ministers  to  go  forth  into  all  the  world, 
and  immerse  all  that  believe  in  his  name?  This  point  has 
been  incontrovertibly  established  ;  and  with  the  humble  and 
sincere  disciple,  such  objections  as  the  above  have  not  the 
weight  of  a  straw  ;  they  are  contemptible. 

But  Professor  Stuart  thinks  he  has  scriptural  proof  that 
external  rites  are  of  little  value.  The  passage  he  appeals  to 
is  2  Chron.  30:  18-20.  It  appears  that  Hezekiah,  upon  his 
accession  to  the  throne  of  Judah,  wishing  to  restore  the  long- 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  215 

neglected  solemnities  of  religion,  cle'ansed  the  temple,  and 
proclaimed  a  passover  on  the.  fourteenth  day  of  the  second 
month,  beirig  too  late  to  celebrate  in  the  first.  According 
to.  the  law  of  Moses,  all  who  had  contracted  ceremonial 
defilement  were  prohibited  access  to  the  feast,  until  they 
were  purified  :  "  Whosoever  he  be  of  all  your  seed,  among 
your  generations,  that  goeth  unto  the  holy  things  which  the 
children  of  Israel  do  hallow  unto  the  Lord,  having  his  un- 
cleanness  upon  him,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  oft'  from  my  pres- 
ence." (Lev.  22  :  3.)  But  it  was  ascertained  after  the 
solemnities  of  the  passover,  that  "  a  multitude  of  the  people 
who  had  not  cleansed  themselves,  did  eat  of  the  passover 
otherwise  than  was  written."  "  And  what,"  says  Professor 
Stuart,  "  did  this  good  king  in  respect  to  them  ]  Did  he 
excommunicate  them,  or  refuse  to  keep  the  passover  with 
them  ?  Neither ;  but  he  prayed  for  them,  saying,  '  The  good 
Lord  pardon  every  one  that  prepareth  his  heart  to  seek  God, 
the  Lord  God  of  his  fathers,  though  he  be  not  cleansed 
according  to  the  purification  of  the  sanctuary.  And  the  Lord 
hearkened  to  Hezekiah,  and  healed  the  people.'  And  is  not 
this,"  continues  Professor  Stuart,  "  fraught  with  instruction, 
as  to  the  real  value  the  Bible  sets  upon  externals  ?  It  does 
seem  to  me  to  be  so."  Hezekiah  did  not  indeed  refuse  to 
keep  the  passover  with  them  ;  for  this  feast  was  already  over, 
and  their  guilt  consisted  in  having  partaken  in  their  unclean- 
ness.  Had  he  known,  however,  that  they  were  not  purified, 
he  could  not  have  permitted  them  to  approach  the  feasti 
without  being  himself  a  partaker  of  their  sin.  But  why  did 
he  not  excommunicate  them  1  Was  it  because  he  thought 
the  offence  of  so  little  consequence  as  not  to  deserve  notice  1 
By  no  means.  God  forgave  them,  and  therefore  Hezekiah  did 
so.  The  feast  of  unleavened  bread  followed  the  passover, 
and  on  this  occasion  continued  fourteen  days.     The  persons 


216  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

in  question  undoubtedly  united  with  their  brethren  in  the 
remaining  solemnities ;  but  not  without  being  purified.  It 
is  true  that  this  case  is  fraught  with  instruction  as  to  the  real 
value  which  the  Bible  sets  upon  externals.  But  what  does 
it  teach  us  ?  that  externals  are  of  little  importance  ?  Does  not 
the  fact*  that  God  forgave  them  prove  that  they  had  sinned 
in  neglecting  those  rites  of  purification  1  And  does  not  the 
solicitude  which  Hezekiah  felt  on  their  account,  go  to  show 
that  the  offence  was  one  of  serious  magnitude?  There 
surely  is  nothing  in  all  this  transaction  that  would  lead  us 
to  conclude  that  those  institutions  were  unimportant,  unless 
it  be  the  fact  that  God  pardoned  the  delinquents.  But 
should  the  aggressor,  because  he  is  forgiven  in  one  instance, 
be  emboldened  to  commit  a  second  offence'?  Will  the 
Christian,  who  has  experienced  the  favor  of  pardon,  turn  the 
grace  of  God  into  licentiousness?  It  is  impossible.  This 
passage,  then,  instead  of  annihilating  the  value  of  external 
rites,  proves  most  conclusively,  that  when  they  are  enjoined, 
they  cannot  be  dispensed  with,  without  incurring  the  Divine 
displeasure. 

But  in  addition  to  all  these  considerations,  Prof.  Stuart 
supposes  there  is  an  tmavoidable  necessity  in  the  case. 
"  Mere  externals,"  he  says,  "  must  be  things  of  particular 
time  and  place.  Dress  does  not  make  the  man.  One  dress 
may  be  more  convenient,  or  more  decorous  than  another ; 
but  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  is  an  essential  part  of  the 
person.  So  the  common  feeling  of  men  has  decided  about 
most  of  the  external  matters  pertaining  to  religion,  the 
world  over.  They  have  always  been  modified  by  time  and 
place,  by  manners  and  customs,  and  they  always  will  be. 
The  zealot  may  declaim  against  this,  and  cry  out  that  the 
Church  is  in  danger,  and  that  she  has  departed  from  the  com- 
mands of  the  gospel ;  but  considerate  and  really  spiritual  men 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  217 

will  reply,  that  God  is  a  spirit,  and  that  he  seeks  spiritual 
worshippers."  The  amount  of  this  argument  is,  that  men 
may  modify  and  alter  the  institutions  of  Christ,  because  they 
will  do  it;  and  whoever  presumes  to  declaim  against  it,  shall 
be  branded  as  a  bigot  and  a  zealot.  Must  positive  institutions 
then,  though  adapted  to  the  universal  Church,  and  designed 
to  be  perpetuated  to  the  end  of  time,  be  accommodated  to 
human  notions  of  fitness  and  expediency?  Have  not  baptism 
and  the  communion — those  distinguishing  institutions  of 
Christianity — a  more  permanent  character  than  the  changing 
customs  of  manners  and  dress?  It  is  truly  surprising  that 
any  enlightened  Christian  should  place  the  standing  ordi- 
nances of  the  gospel  on  a  level  with  things  of  time  and  place. 
Yet  Professor  Stuart  strenuously  maintains  that  the  positive 
institutions  of  religion  stand  upon  the  same  footing  with 
customs  of  manners  and  dress  ;  and  that  they  may  be  varied 
to  suit  the  time  and  place,  with  the  same  propriety,  and  on 
the  same  principle,  that  a  Turkish  female  might  lay  aside  her 
veil,  or  a  gentleman  change  the  fashion  of  his  coat.  The 
Saviour,  when  he  instituted  these  rites,  must  have  had  every 
possible  circumstance  of  time  and  place,  manners  and  cus- 
toms, in  immediate  view  ;  and  yet  he  made  no  provision  for 
their  accommodation  to  these  circumstances.  Who  then 
will  presume  to  attach  a  proviso  to  the  law,  where  he  has  not 
appended  one?  But  "the  common  feeling  of  men  has  de- 
cided thus,  the  world  over."  It  is  nothing  to  me  what  the 
feelings  of  men  have  decided,  or  how  generally  they  may 
have  conspired  to  reject  the  authority  of  God.  The  man- 
date of  Jehovah  is  not  to  be  set  aside  by  the  dictate  of 
mortals.  It  matters  not  how  early  they  "  began  to  deflect " 
from  the  apostolic  practice,  nor  how  general  the  deflection. 
■\Vhat  evidence  have  we  that  we  love  Christ,  while  we  pay 
more  deference  to  the  feelings  of  men,  and  the  customs  of 
10 


218  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

the  times,  than  to  his  authority  ?  Did  the  apostles  and  proph 
ets  claim  the  liberty  Professor  Stuart  pleads  for1?  Were 
they  ever  known  to  shun  a  commanded  duty,  from  regard 
to  personal  convenience,  or  in  compliance  with  the  customs 
of  the  times  ?  Were  they  ever  known  to  deviate  in  a  single 
iota  from  the  divinely-instituted  forms  of  worship,  to  escape 
the  sneers  of  the  vulgar,  or  the  frown  of  kings,  or  even  to 
save  themselves  from  the  martyr's  fate?  They  were 
"  killed  all  the  day  long,"  and  "  counted  not  their  lives  dear 
unto  themselves."  But  would  Daniel  have  persisted  in  his 
custom  of  praying  three  times  every  day,  in  defiance  of  the 
royal  proclamation,  and  in  hazard  of  an  indescribably  cruel 
death,  if  he  had  supposed  that  "spirituality"  would  atone  for 
the  neglect  of  external  devotion  1  Would  the  apostles,  whose 
lives  and  labors  were  so  precious  to-  the  Church,  have  wan- 
tonly courted  persecution  and  death,  from  an  excessive 
attachment  to  mere  matters  of  indifference?  It  is  impos- 
sible. They  must  have  acted  from  a  conviction  that  the 
positive  institutions  of  religion  were  not  mere  things  of  time 
and  place. 

But,  finally,  if  we  will  insist  on  a  literal  adherence  to  the 
command,  and  maintain  that  a  particular  mode  of  applying 
the  water  is  essential,  "  We  must,"  says  Professor  Stuart, 
"if  we  would  be  consistent  with  ourselves,  go  over  to  the 
opus  operatum*  of  the  Roman  Catholics;"  "and  on  such 
excessive  attachment  to  the  mere  externals  of  religion,"  he 
adds,  "  are  justly  chargeable  the  divisions  and  feuds  of 
Christians,  in  relation  to  the  mode  of  baptism  ;  and  the 
Church  never  can  have  peace,  until  men  will  cease  from  the 
spirit  of  contention  about  matters  of  costume  in  religion,  and 
leave  every  one  to  his  own  choice  in  this  respect." 

*  In  other  words,  the  doctrine  of  merit,  or  inherent  efficacy,  in  the 
act  of  duty  performed. 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  219 

But  in  what  sense  is  baptism  left  bo  our  choice  ?  Christ 
has  neither  commanded  us  to  pour  nor  sprinkle.  He  has 
not  told  us  to  take  our  ehoice  between  different  modes;  but 
he  has  expressly  enjoined  immersion.  It  is  for  us  to  deter- 
mine whether  we  will  obey  this  command  or  disobey  it. 
And  because  we  choose  to  adhere  to  the  command,  we  are 
accused  of  an  excessive  attachment  to  duty.  Is  there  danger, 
then,  of  an  excessive  regard  to  the  authority  of  God  1  What 
standard  have  we  to  determine  the  importance  of  external, 
or  any  other  duties,  but  the  mind  of  God  1  And  he  says : 
"  What  thing  soever  I  command  you,  observe  to  do  it :  thou 
shalt  not  add  thereto,  nor  diminish  from  it."  (Deut.  12  :  32.) 
Yet  because  we  choose  to  keep  the  ordinances  of  Christ  just 
as  he  delivered  them  to  us,  and  decline  an  alliance  with 
those  who  seem  to  slight  his  authority,  we  are  supposed  to 
cherish  an  attachment  to  external  duties,  that  is  altogether 
disproportioned  to  their  real  importance,  and  fraught  with 
the"  mischievous  consequences  of  unholy  strife  and  division. 
Professor  Stuart  distinctly  assumes  that,  though  Christ  com- 
manded us  to  immerse,  we  are,  nevertheless,  at  liberty  to 
choose  between  this  and  any  other  mode  of  applying  water ; 
and  that  if  we  refuse  to  admit  this,  and  insist  on  a  particular 
mode,  we  evince  an  excessive  attachment  to  the  externals  of 
religion,  and  are  justly  chargeable  with  the  divisions  and 
feuds  of  Christians  in  relation  to  the  mode  of  baptism.  Is 
this  charge  just1?  Suppose  that  under  a  wise  and  equitable 
administration  of  the  government,  a  party  of  subjects  should 
conspire  to  throw  off  the  restraint  of  the  laws,  so  far  as  they 
did  not  accord  with  their  views  of  fitness  and  expediency, 
-would  it  behoove  the  rest,  for  the  sake  of  union,  to  go  over 
and  join  the  standard  of  rebellion?  Certainly  not.  And 
though  others  are  pleased  to  abjure  the  laws  of  Christ,  and 
depart  from  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  it  cannot  be  our 


220  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

duty,  for  the  sake  of  harmony,  to  follow  them.  And  though 
there  be  "  divisions,"  we  are  neither  the  occasion  of  the 
schism,  nor  responsible  for  the  consequences.  The  case  of 
Ahab  and  Elijah  will  furnish  an  apposite  illustration.  When 
Israel,  under  the  reign  of  Ahab,  had  relapsed  into  idolatry, 
Elijah,  jealous  for  the  divine  honour,  reproved  them  for  their 
backslidings,  and  urged  them  to  return,  under  penalty  of 
experiencing  the  judgments  of  the  Most  High.  Ahab  was 
enraged  at  the  prophet,  and  roughly  accosted  him  as  the 
"troubler"  of  Israel.  Elijah  replied,  "I  have  not  troubled 
Israel ;  but  thou  and  thy  father's  house,  in  that  ye  have  for- 
saken the  commandments  of  the  Lord."  Like  this  ancient 
prophet,  instead  of  bartering  the  truth  for  an  inglorious 
peace,  we  are  resolved  to  contend  for  the  ordinances  as  they 
were  delivered,  and  disclaim  all  responsibility  for  the  con- 
sequences. If  our  brethren  regard  us  on  this  account  as.  the 
"  troublers  of  Israel,"  we  will  bear  the  reproach,  satisfied  with 
the  approbation  of  Him  who  has  said,  "  Ye  are  my  friends  if 
ye  do  whatsoever  I  command  you.''''  And  does  a  strict  ad- 
herence to  the  command  necessarily  imply  that  we  put 
baptism  in  the  place  of  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  the 
sanctifying  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit?  May  we  not  con- 
fine ourselves  to  immersion,  from  a  conscientious  regard  to 
the  Saviour's  command,  without  ascribing  to  the  rite  a 
mystical  power  of  sanctification  I  So  far  from  believing 
that  baptism  sanctifies  or  saves  the  subject,  we  never  admin- 
ister it  to  any,  except  they  first  profess  faith  iu  Christ,  and 
give  satisfactory  evidence  that  they  are  already  regenerated. 
This  indeed  constitutes  one  of  the  principal  features  of  our 
denominational  character.  Why  then  are  we  so  repeated  I v 
charged  with  laying  an  improper  stress  upon  baptism]  If 
the  truth  were  fairly  brought  out,  it  would  be  seen  that  it  is 
the  Pcdobaptists  themselves  who  lay  an  unwarrantable  stress 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  221 

upon  this  ordinance  It  is  well  known  that  both  infant  bap- 
tism and  sprinkling  had  their  origin  in  the  belief  that  baptism 
gave  a  title  to  salvation.  Supposing  that  all  such  as  died 
unbaptized  were  inevitably  lost,  they  invented,  at  first  pour- 
ing, and  afterwards  sprinkling,  as  a  substitute  for  baptism,  in 
case  of  imminent  danger  of  death,  and  the  impracticability 
of  immersion.  And  this  practice,  as  Professor  Stuart  fully 
acknowledges,  was  fur  several  centuries  confined  to  cases  of 
this  nature.  Neither  pouring  nor  sprinkling,  then,  was  for 
ages  administered  in  a  single  instance,  except  for  the  express 
purpose  of  securing  to  the  subject  the  remission  of  his  sins, 
and  a  passport  to  heaven.  So  much  for  the  birth  and  early 
history  of  sprinkling.  The  stress  that  is  laid  upon  the  rite 
by  modern  Pedobaptists,  may  be  gathered  from  their  respect- 
ive Confessions  of  Faith,  and  the  writings  of  their  standard 
authors. 

For  the  views  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  take  the  Canons 
and  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  "  If  any  one  shall 
say  that  baptism  is  not  necessary  to  salvation,  let  him  be 
accursed.  Sin,  whether  contracted  by  birth,  from  our  first 
parents,  or  committed  ourselves,  is,  by  the  admirable  virtue 
of  this  sacrament,  remitted  and  pardoned.  In  baptism,  not 
only  sins  are  remitted,  but  also  all  the  punishments  of  sins 
and  wickedness  are  graciously  pardoned  of  God.  By  virtue 
of  this  sacrament,  we  are  not  only  delivered  from  those  evils 
which  are  truly  said  to  be  the  greatest  of  all ;  but  also  we  are 
enriched  with  the  best  and  most  excellent  endowments.  For 
our  souls  are  filled  with  divine  grace,  whereby  being  made 
just,  and  the  children  of  God,  we  are  trained  up  to  be  heirs 
of  eternal  salvation  also.  To  this  is  added  a  most  noble 
train  of  all  virtues,  which,  together  with  grace,  is  poured  of 
God  into  the  soul.  By  baptism  we  are  joined  and  knit  to 
Christ,  as  members  to  the  head.     By  baptism  we  are  signed 


222  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

with  a  character  which  can  never  be  blotted  out  of  our  soul. 
Besides  the  other  things  which  we  obtain  by  baptism,  it  opens 
to  every  one  of  us  the  gate  of  heaven,  which  before,  through 
sin.  was  shut/'*     This  needs  no  comment. 

For  the  views  of  the  English  Episcopal  church,  take  their 
directory  for  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments.  Here 
the  minister,  previously  to  administering  baptism,  is  required 
to  pray  thus  :  "Almighty  and  immortal  God,  the  aid  of  all 
that  need,  the  helper  of  all  that  flee  to  thee  for  succour,  the 
life  of  them  that  believe,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  ; 
we  call  upon  thee  for  this  infant,  that  he,  coming  to  thy  holy 
baptism,  may  receive  remission  of  his  sins  by  spiritual  re- 
generation," etc.  After  administering  the  ordinance  he 
prays  thus:  "We  yield  thee  hearty  thaifks,  most  merciful 
Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regenerate  this  infant 
with  thy  Holy  Spirit,  to  receive  him  for  thine  own  child  by 
adoption,  and  to  incorporate  him  into  thy  holy  church."  At 
the  confirmation  of  the  baptized,  prayer  is  offered  tlius: 
"Almighty  and  ever-living  God,  who  hast  vouchsafed  to 
regenerate  these  thy  servants  by  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  hast  given  unto  them  forgiveness  of  all  their  sins."  The 
Catechism  is  to  the  same  effect.  Question.  "  How  many 
sacraments  hath  Christ  ordained  in  his  Church?  Answer. 
Two  only  as  generally  necessary  to  salvation,  that  is  to  say, 
Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord.  Question.  What 
meanest  thou  by  this  word  sacrament?  Answer.  I  mean 
an  outward  and  visible  sign  of  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace 
given  unto  us,  ordained  by  Christ  himself,  as  a  means  whereby 


*  Concil  Trident.  Scss.vii.  Can.  v.  Catechism  of  Council  of  Trent, 
pp.  KJil — 175.  The  Council  of  Trent  was  assembled  at  twenty-live 
sessions,  from  A.  D.  1545,  to  A.D  15G3,  under  Topes  Taul  III.,  Julius 
IE.,  and  Pius  IV. 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM.  223 

toe  receive  the  same,  and  a  pledge  to  assure  us  thereof.''* 
This  needs  no  comment. 

The  views  of  the  Presbyterians  are  thus  set  forth  in  their 
Confession  of  Faith  :  "The  efficacy  of  baptism  is  not  tied  to 
that  moment  of  time  wherein  it  is  administered;  yet  not- 
withstanding, by  the  right  use  of  this  ordinance,  the  grace 
promised,  is  not  only  offered,  but  really  exhibited  and  con- 
ferred by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  such,  (whether  of  age,  or  in- 
fants,) as  that  grace  belongeth  unto,  according  to  the  coun- 
sels of  his  own  will,  in  his  own  appointed  time."f  Here  it 
is  distinctly  taught  that  the  efficacy  of  baptism  is  such,  that 
grace,  either  at  the  time  of  the  administration  or  afterwards, 
is  really  exhibited  and  conferred  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  case 
that  the  subject  is  embraced  in  the  counsels  of  mercy. 

The  sentiments  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  church  are  thus 
stated  in  their  Liturgy  :  Form  for  the  administration  of  bap- 
tism to  infants  of  believers. — "  Holy  baptism  witnesses  and 
sealeth  unto  us  the  washing  away  of  our  sins  through  Jesus 
Christ.  For  when  we  are  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
God  the  Father  witnesseth  and  sealeth  unto  us,  that  he  doth 
make  an  eternal  covenant  of  grace  with  us,'  and  adopt  us  for 
his  children  and  heirs,  &c.  And  when  we  are  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Son,  the  Son  sealeth  unto  us,  that  he  doth 
wash  us  in  his  blood  from  all  our  sins,  incorporating  us  into 
the  fellowship  of  his  death  and  resurrection,  so  that  we  are 
free  from  all  our  sins,  and  accounted  righteous  before.  In 
like  manner,  when  we  are  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  Holy  Ghost  assures  us  by  this  holy  sacrament, 
that  he  will  dwell  in  us,  and  sanctify  us  to  be  members  of 
Christ,   applying  unto    us   that  which  we    have    in  Christ, 

*  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  Admiuistration  of  the  Sacrament. 
f  Confession  of  Faith,  p.  123,  ed.  Philadelphia,  1834." 


224  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

namely,  the  washing  away  of  our  sins,  and  the  daily  renewing 
of  our  lives,  till  we  shall  finally  be  presented  without  spot 
or  wrinkle  among  the  assembly  of  the  elect  in  life  eternal." 
It  is  here  distinctly  stated  that  the  benefits  of  pardon,  sancti- 
fieation,  and  eternal  life,  are  secure  to  all  baptized  infants. 
The  same  is  also  taught  in  the  catechism. 

The  following  extracts  are  from  distinguished  and  stand- 
ard authors  of  different  Pedobaptist  denominations: 

Matthew  Henry,  a  Congregationalist,  and  a  celebrated 
Commentator:  "The  gospel  contains  not  only  a  doctrine, 
but  a  covenant ;  and  by  baptism  we  are  brought  into  that 
covenant.  Baptism  wrests  the  keys  of  the  heart  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  strong  man  armed,  that  the  possession  may  be 
surrendered  to  Him  whose  right  it  is — The  water  of  baptism 
is  designed  for  our  cleansing  from  the  spots  and  defilements 
of  the  flesh — In  baptism  our  names  are  engraved  upon  the 
breastplate  of  this  great  High  Priest — This  then  is  the  effi- 
cacy of  baptism ;  it  is  putting  the  child's  name  into  the  gos- 
pel grant — We  are  baptized  into  Christ's  death,  i.  e.  God 
doth  in  that  ordinance,  seal,  confirm,  and  make  over  to  us, 
all  the  benefits  of  the  death  of  Christ — Infant  baptism, 
speaks  an  hereditary  relation  to  God,  that  comes  to  us  by 
descent."     Treatise  on  Baptism. 

Budd^eus,  a  profound  scholar,  and  a  theological  writer  of 
the  last  century  :  "  Baptism  is  not  a  mere  sign  and  symbol, 
by  which  a  reception  into  the  covenant  of  grace  is  denoted ; 
but  by  regeneration,  which  baptism  effects,  we  are  really  re- 
ceived iuto  that  covenant;  and  so  are  made  partakers  of  all 
the  blessings  peculiar  to  it." 

Dr.  Waterland,  a  celebrated  scholar  and  divine  of  the 
Church  of  England  :  "  Baptism  alone  is  sufficient  to  make  one 
a  Christian,  yea,  and  to  keep  him  such  even  to  his  life's  end  ; 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  225 

since  it  imprints  an  indelible  character  in  such  a  sense  as 
never  to  need  repeating." 

Lewelyn:  "Christ  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  man,  nor 
any  man  with  Christ,  till  he  is  baptized  with  water.  All 
power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  is  in  baptism.  He  that  is  not 
baptized,  has  no  interest  in  the  Father,  the  Son,  nor  the  Holy- 
Spirit.  By  this  ordinance  he  is  united  unto  the  true  God, 
and  becomes  one  with  him  in  all  things.  Baptism  is  our 
righteousness  and  true  holiness  ;  it  is  remission  and  cleansing 
from  sin,  and  though  our  sins  be  as  scarlet,  baptism  makes 
them  whiter  than  snow.  He  who  is  baptized  is  as  white  and 
clean  from  sin  as  God  can  make  him."  Treatise  on  Baptism, 
pp.  5—23. 

.  John  Wesley,  the  founder  of  Methodism  :  "By  baptism, 
we  who  were  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  are  made  the 
children  of  God.  And  this  regeneration,  which  our' church 
in  so  many  places  ascribes  to  baptism,  is  more  than  barely 
being  admitted  into  the  church,  though  commonly  connected 
therewith.  Being  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  church, 
we  are  made  the  children  of  God  by  adoption  and  grace, 
John  3:5.  By  water  then*  as  a  means,  the  water  of  bap- 
tism, we  are  regenerated  or  born  again  :  whence  it  is  called 
by  the  apostle,  "  the  washing  of  regeneration." — In  all  ages, 
the  outward  baptism  is  a  means  of  the  inward — Herein  we 
receive  a  title  to,  and  an  earnest  of,  a  kingdom  which  cannot 
be  moved. — In  the  ordinary  way  there  is  no  other  means  of 
entering  into  the  church  or  into  heaven. — If  infants  are  guilty 
of  original  sin,  then  they  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  see- 
ing, in  the  ordinary  way  they  cannot  be  saved  unless  this  -be 
washed  away  by  baptism."* 

Deylingius,  in  his  Pastoral  Theology  says  :   "  Baptism  is 

*  Treatise  on  Bapt.    Work?,  vol.  vi.  pp.  15,  17.     New  York,  1832. 
10* 


226  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

the  sacrament  of  initiation,  and  as  it  were  the  gate  of  heaven, 
in  which  a  man  is  regenerated  by  the  washing  of  water,  and 
the  Word  of  God,  purged  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  declared 
to  be  an  heir  of  all  celestial  blessings" — and  he  adds,  "If 
Christian  parents  defer  the  baptism  of  their  infants;  or, 
seized  by  the  spirit  of  Anabaptism,  or  of  fanaticism,  will  not 
have  them  baptized  at  all ; — then,  by  the  authority  of  the 
consistory,  or  of  the  magistrate  of  the  place,  the  infant  must 
be  taken  from  the  parents,  and  when  initiated  by  baptism 
returned  to  them."* 

So  essential  is  baptism  deemed  by  the  Roman  Catholics, 
that  laymen,  physicians,  females,  and  even  persons  of  any 
class,  are  authorized  to  administer  the  ordinance  in  extraor- 
dinary cases.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
Father  Jerom  Forentini,  of  Lucca,  published  a  fourth  edition 
of  a  middle-sized  quarto,  which  had  been  published  by  him 
some  years  before  in  a  smaller  compass,  to  explain,  confirm, 
and  direct  the  baptism  of  infants  unborn.  This  book  was 
accompanied  with  no  less  than  forty  imprimaturs  and  recom- 
mendations from  divines,  bishops,  physicians,  generals  of 
orders,  and  universities.f  And,  So  late  as  the  year  seventeen 
hundred  and  fifty  one,  a  doctor  of  divinity  and  laws,  of  Paler- 
mo, J  published  in  the  Italian  tongue,  a  book  of  three  hundred 
and  twenty  pages  in  quarto,  dedicated  to  all  the  guardian 
angels,  to  direct  priests  and  physicians  how  to  secure  the 
eternal  salvation  of  infants  by  baptizing  them  when  they 
could  not  be  born.§ 

*»De  Prudent.  Pastoral.  Pars.  iii.  c.  3,  §  2,  15. 

f  Robinson,  Hist,  of  Baptism,  p.  432,  ed.  Loudon,  1790. 

X  F.  E.  Cangiamil.e,  Embriologia  Sacra  Medio].  1751. 

§  Such  baptisms  are  not  confined  to  past  ages  and  foreign  countries. 
The  practice  is  continued  to  the  present  day,  and  in  our  own  country 
A  respectable  physician  in  the  city  of  New  York  was,  in  a  certain  in- 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  227 

It  is  not  true,  then,  that  an  adherence  to  immersion  neces- 
sarily involves  the  doctrine  of  opus  operalum  ;  but  it  is  true, 
and  cannot  be  denied,  that  sprinkling  is  the  legitimate  off- 
spring of  that  doctrine ;  and  that,  for  ages,  it  lived,  and  moved, 
and  had  its  being,  in  that  sentiment  alone.  And  it  is  equally 
undeniable,  that  the  two  have  usually  gone  hand  in  hand  to  the 
present  time.  These  facts  I  would  gladly  have  passed  over  in 
silence,  had  I  not  been  compelled  to  notice  them.  Pedobap- 
tists  have  laboured  to  impress  the  public  mind  with  the  belief, 
that  it  is  the  Baptists  who  lay  an  improper  stress  upon  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  Now,  this  is  exactly  the  reverse  of 
truth.  It  was  necessary,  therefore,  that  the  views  of  the  great 
body  of  Pedobaptists,  as  set  forth  in  their  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  as  avowed  by  their  most  popular  writers,  should  be  dis- 
tinctly placed  before  the  reader,  that  he  might  be  able  to 
judge  who  it  is  that  magnify  the  importance  of  this  rite  be- 
yond its  proper  bounds.  We  do  not  believe,  neither  do  we 
teach,  that  baptism  is  regeneration  ;  that  it  is  remission  of 
sins ;  that  it  brings  us  into  a  covenant  relation  with  God  ; 
or  gives  us  a  title  to  heaven.  We  require  of  every  person 
who  proposes  to  receive  baptism,  that  he  give  evidence  of 
having  experienced  the  grace  of  regeneration  and  remission 
of  sins.  So  far  from  believing  that  baptism  gives  a  title  to 
salvation,  we  insist  that  it  is  the  experience  of  the  grace  of 
salvation  alone,  that  can  give  a  title  to  baptism.  But  though 
eternal  life  is  the  gift  of  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
we  do  believe,  nevertheless,  that  it  is  important  to  observe 
every  institution  that  is  of  Divine  appointment.  We  insist 
that  immersion  is  enjoined  on  every  believer  in  Jesus  Christ, 
and  that  it  is  important  for  every  believer  to  observe  it. 

stance,  not  long  since,  requested  by  apriest  to  administer  baptism  in  a 
case  of  this  nature,  provided  that  the  circumstances  should  require  it. 


228  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

To  this  Prof.  Stuart  opposes,  that  external  rites  make  no 
part  of  real  religion ;  that  they  are  not  essential  to  salva- 
tion ;  and  that  it  cannot,  therefore,  be  important  to  observe 
them  according  to  the  original  institution.     But  is  his  opinion 
properly  sustained  1     Does  it  not,  in  some  important  particu- 
lars, at  least,  conflict  with  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  1     James, 
c.  1,  v.  27,  says :  "  Pure  religion  and  undefiled  before  God  and 
the  Father  is  this,  To  visit  the  fatherless  and  widows  in  their 
affliction,  and   to  keep  himself  unspotted  from  the  world." 
Here  it  is  clearly  stated  that  outward  duties  do  compose  a 
very  important  part  of  religion ;  and  that,  however  much 
man  may  talk  of  spirituality  and  faith,  unless  he  is  a  Chris- 
tian in  deed  as  well  as  in  word,  his  religion  is  vain.     And  is 
it  not  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  true  religion,  for  one  to  refuse 
to  obey  any  Divine  command,  and  attempt  to  vindicate  his 
refusal  by  saying  :  "  The  performance  of  it  is  not  essential 
to  my  happiness ;  for  a  sinner  may  be  saved  without  it"  ? 
Is  not  this  mode  of  arguing,  as  Mr.  Booth  observes,  "  big 
with  rebellion  against  God"  1     What!     Shall  we  do  nothing 
that  God  has  commanded,  unless  we  look  upon  it  as  essen- 
tially necessary  to  our  future  felicity  1     Is  this  the  way  to 
manifest  our  faith  in  Jesus,  and  love  to  God  ?     "  This  is  the 
love  of  God,"  says  the  apostle,  "that  we  keep  his  command- 
ments ;  and  his  commandments  are  not  grievous,"  1  John 
5  :  3.     And  again,  "  I   rejoiced  greatly  that  I  found  of  thy 
children  walking  in  truth,  as  we  have  received  a  command- 
ment of  the  Father,"  2  John  5:  4.    Here  the  "love  of  God" 
and  "  walking  in  truth"  are  inseparably  connected  with  obedi- 
ence to  the    Divine  commands.     Saul,  when  he  was  sent 
against  the  Amalekites,  with  a  particular  charge  to  destroy 
both  man  and  beast,  presumed  to  spare  the  best  of  the  sheep 
and  of  the  oxen,  for  a  sacrifice  unto   the   Lord  ;  but  what 
said  Samuel  to  him?     "  Hath  the  Lord  as  great  delight  in 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM.  229 

burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices,  as  in  obeying  the  voice  of  the 
Lord  \  Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  "and  to 
hearken,  than  the  fat  of  rams.  For  rebellion  is  as  the  sin  of 
witchcraft,  and  stubbornness  is  as  iniquity  and  idolatry. 
Because  thou  hast  rejected  the  word  of  the  Lord,  he  hath 
also  rejected  thee  from  being  king,"  1  Sam.  15  :  22,  23. 
Saul  presumed  that  a  sacrifice  would  be,  in  that  instance,  as 
acceptable  to  the  Lord  as  obedience  to  his  command.  But 
he  was  mistaken.  So,  if  we  presume  to  substitute  in  the 
place  of  any  Divine  institution,  an  uncommanded  service, 
we  must  expect,  instead  of  a  gracious  acceptance,  to  be  met 
with  the  rebuke,  "  Who  hath  required  this  at  your  hand  ?" 

Prof.  Stuart  does  not  pretend,  that  in  practicing  immer- 
sion, we  deviate  either  from  the  command  of  Christ  or  the 
example  of  the  apostles  ;  but  he  thinks  we  are  pharisaically 
rigid,  and  superstitiously  attached  to  rites  and  forms,  in  that 
we  will  allow  of  no  alteration  of  the  original  form  of  the 
institution.  But  what  do  all  his  arguments  in  favour  of 
changing  the  original  rite  amount  to  1  What  are  consider- 
ations of  "  personal  convenience,"  and  the  "  common  feeling 
of  men,"  or  even  of  the  nature  of  the  service  required,  when 
placed  in  the  scale  against  a  positive  command  of  Christ  1 
What  will  these  objections  weigh  with  the  sincere  Christian, 
who  is  satisfied  that  the  Saviour  requires  him  to  be  im- 
mersed ?  And  how  can  one  fail  of  being  satisfied  of  this, 
if  he  examine  the  subject  in  the  light  of  reason  and  of  Scrip- 
ture %  The  meaning  of  the  word,  the  design  of  the  rite,  and 
the  uniform  practice  of  the  apostles,  all  conspire  to  bring  us 
to  the  conclusion,  that  the  original  institution  of  Christ  was 
immersion,  and  immersion  only.  In  this  form  it  was  trans- 
mitted by  the  apostles  to  their  successors  ;  and  for  more 
than  thirteen  centuries  it  was  preserved  in  its  original  sim- 
plicity.    In  this  form  it  is  still  binding  on  every  follower  of 


230  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Christ.  And  when  the  churches  are  purged  of  their  corrup- 
tions, and  approach  the  period  of  perfection  and  millennial 
glory,  they  must  return  to  the  apostolic  standard,  acknowl- 
edging, as  at  the  beginning,  but  one  Lord,  one  faith,  and 

ONE    BAPTISM.* 

*  This  chapter  is  from  the  Review  of  Stuart,  by  the  late  Wm.  Judd. 


APPENDIX 


NOTE  FIRST. 

Our  English  translators  have  erred  egregiously  in  ren- 
dering (3a7T~i^eiv  iv,  baptize  toith.  The  preposition  iv  in 
construction  with  /3a7rrtc;w,  never  means  with,  but  is  always 
to  be  taken  in  the  sense  in  or  into.  It  is  invariably  so  ren- 
dered in  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  other  early  versions.  fiaTr- 
t'l&lv  elg  is  not,  as  Prof.  Stuart  asserts,  the  usual  classical 
construction  for  expressing  the  idea  of  plunging  into.  This 
verb  expresses  plunging,  wherever  it  is  used,  whatever  be  the 
mode  of  construction ;  but  taking  only  these  cases  where 
mention  is  made  of  the  element,  and  where  the  sense  of 
plunging  into  is  indisputably  certain  from  the  connection, 
I  find,  from  a  general  survey  of  the  examples,  that  the  clas- 
sics use  f3anTL$eLv  iv  twice  as  often  as  f3anri^eiv  etc.  Prof. 
Stuart's  mistake  on  this  point  arose  no  doubt  from  confound- 
ing the  usage  of  fiaiTTi^G)  with  that  of  ftdiTTh).  Taking  it 
for  granted  that  the  usage  of  both  verbs  is  precisely  the  same, 
he  has  produced  some  ten  examples  of  pdnro)  in  construction 
with  etc,  and  one  of  /3a7rri%G),  in  order  to  show  the  usage  of 
the  latter  verb.  Now,  /3aTrrw  is  very  often  constructed 
with  Iv,  with  the  sense  of  plunging  into,  perhaps  almost  as 
often  as  with  elc ;  but  admitting  that  it  is,  for  the  most  part, 
joined  with  efc,  still  it  is  certainly  not.the  case  with  regard 
to  (3a-TTTi%G):  as  Prof.  Stuart  would  have  seen,  had  he  con- 

(231) 


232  APPENDIX. 

ducted  his  investigation  on  strictly  philological  principles, 
confining  himself  to  the  verb  with  which  he  was  chiefly  con- 
cerned. The  truth  is,  any  verb  in  Greek,  signifying  to 
plunge,  might  usually  take  either  etc  or  kv,  without  any 
material  difference  of  meaning  ;  though  in  point  of  fact,  some 
verbs  are  connected  with  one,  oftener  than  with  the  other. 
Precisely  the  same  usage  obtains  in  English.  We  can  say 
either  dip  in  or  dip  into  ;  immerse  in  or  immerse  into  ;  but 
in  actual  use,  dip  is  probably  constructed  with  into  oftener 
than  with  in,  while  immerse  is  almost  exclusively  constructed 
with  in.  Now  this  does  not  arise  from  the  fact  that  the 
expression  "  to  immerse  one  in  water  "  conveys  a  materially 
different  meaning  from  the  phrase  "  to  immerse  one  into 
water;"  for  as  to  sense,  the  two  expressions  are  entirely 
equivalent ;  but  it  is  because  the  former  expression  is  a  more 
euphonious  one  than  the  latter.  It  is  entirely  a  matter  of 
taste.  So  with  regard  to  the  Greek.  Whether  "baptize 
into"  or  "  baptize  in  "  be  spoken,  is,  for  the  most  part,  im- 
material, as  to  the  sense.  Hence  it  becomes  a  matter  of 
taste ;  and  they  give  the  preference  to  the  more  euphonious 
expression  of  the  two. 

Prof.  Stuart  has  also  entirely  failed  in  his  attempt  to  prove 
that  efiaTTTiod?!  elg  tov  'lopSdvfiv,  in  Mark  1  :  9,  would  bear 
to  be  rendered  "  was  baptized  at  the  Jordan."  The  proofs 
which  he  cites  are  Matt,  2  :  23,  John  21  :  4,  Acts  8  :  40, 
Sept.  Esth.  1  :  5.  In  not  one  of  these  instances,  however, 
does  the  preposition  mean  at.  But  if,  in  such  connections, 
it  merely  signifies  locality,  i.  e.  in,  without  the  idea  of  en- 
trance into,  it  will  determine  nothing  as  to  its  signification  in 
connection  with  such  verbs  as  (3aTrri^o).  Its  proper  and 
primary  meaning  is  into ;  and  it  must  be  allowed  its  primary 
meaning  in  all  cases  where  the  connection  does  not  exclude 
it.     In  connection  with  the  verbs  in  question,  it  confessedly 


APPENDIX.  233 

signifies  into.  Prof.  Stuart  admits  this,  and  even  contends 
for  it,  on  page  313,  though  he  contends  against  it,  with  ref- 
erence to  Mark  1  :  9,  ofT  page  314.  Nor  has  Prof.  Stuart 
done  any  thing  towards  establishing  the  sense,  "  was  bap- 
tized with  the  Jordan,"  which  he  thinks  to  be  the  true  ren- 
dering, the  other  being  adduced  only  as  a  ]iossible  construc- 
tion. He  appeals  for  proof  to  John  9  :  7,  vcijjai  elg  koavji- 
i3fj$pav,  wash  into  the  pool •  and  Alciphron  3.  43,  Xovoa\i- 
evov  elg  to  fiaXaveiov,  having  washed  into  the  bath,  in  which 
cases,  he  supposes  elg  to  be  employed  in  a  like  sense  with  iv. 
But  before  these  passages  can  make  any  thing  to  his  purpose, 
it  must  be  shown,  not  only  that  elg  is  here  used  in  a  like 
sense  with  iv,  but  also  that  iv  in  such  connections  would  sig- 
nify with.  In  other  words,  it  must  be  proved  that  elg  in 
these  places  signifies  with.  Now,  I  confidently  deny  that  ev 
in  such  connections  ever  signifies  with  ;  and  if  it  did,  I  would 
still  deny  that  elg  could  not  be  interchanged  with  it  in  the 
sense  of  instrumentality  ;  for  it  has  no  such  meaning  in  the 
whole  compass  of  the  language.  It  is  true  that  elg,  in  cer- 
tain connections,  signifies  intusposition  merely,  i.  e.  position 
•within  the  object  mentioned,  without  the  idea  of  entrance 
into  it ;  but  it  never  means  mere  proximity,  nor  instrumen- 
tality. If  elg  were  to  be  taken  here  for  iv,  it  must  be  taken 
for  it  in  the  sense  of  locality  or  intusposition  ;  and  we  should 
have  to  render  "in  the  pool" — "in  the  bath;"  and  not 
"  with  the  pool  " — "  with  the  bath  ;"  nor  yet  "  at  the  pool  " 
— "  at  the  bath."  Indeed,  the  connection  in  both  cases  ex- 
cludes the  meaning  at,  that  is,  if  at  denote  mere  proximity  ; 
for  the  washing  mentioned  in  John  9  :  7  was  literally  per- 
formed in  the  pool,  not  merely  at  or  near  it.  And  so  was 
the  washing  or  bathing  mentioned  in  Alciphron  3.  43  literally 
performed  in  the  bath,  not  outside  of  it.  If  Prof.  Stuart 
doubts  that  the  operation  of  bathing  was  performed  in  the 


234  APPENDIX. 

baths,  I  would  refer  him  to  such  passages  as  Arrian.  Epictet. 
2.  20,  "  When  you  bathe,  what  do  you  go  into  ?"  Again, 
same  e.,  "  They  seek  to  go  away  inlo  the  bath."  Horn.  II. 
10.  576,  "  And  then  going  into  the  polished  baths,  they  washed 
themselves."  Aesch.  Choeph.  489,  "Remember  the  baths 
in  which  thou  wast  bereaved  of  life" — the  words  of  Ores- 
tes to  his  father,  who  had  been  killed  by  Clytemnestra  while 
in  the  act  of  bathing.  Agamem.  1 128,  "  She  smote  him,  and 
he  fell  in  the  laver  of  water" — an  allusion  to  the  same  affair. 
I  do  not  believe,  however,  that  elg  here  means  in.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  it  has  in  these  places  its  proper  and  legitimate 
signification.  When  we  speak  of  washing  into  a  vessel,  the 
idea  expressed  is  that  of  washing  off  sweat,  dirt,  &c,  into  the 
vessel.  This  is  the  proper  force  of  the  expression,  and  no 
doubt  it  is  used  in  this  sense,  when  John  speaks  of  washing 
into  the  pool,  and  Alciphron,  of  washing  into  the  bath.  Dr. 
Bloomfield  supposes  that  this  passage  of  Alciphron  has  a  sig- 
nificatio  pregnans,  and  that  the  sense  is,  "to  be  washed  (by 
being  plunged)  into  a  bath."  But  I  prefer  the  analysis  which 
I  have  just  proposed.  The  words  in  Mark  1  :  9,  then,  for 
aught  that  Prof.  Stuart  has  advanced,  may  be  rendered  ac- 
cording to  their  proper  force,  "  was  baptized  or  plunged  into 
the  river  Jordan."  Even  Dr.  Bloomfield  acknowledges  this, 
in  his  note  on  the  place.  He  says  :  "  Etc  is  not  here  for  ev, 
as  most  commentators  imagine,  who  adduce  examples  which 
are  quite  inapposite.  The  sense  of  ifianT.  elg  is,  "  was  dip- 
ped" or  "  plunged  into." 


APPENDIX.  235 


NOTE  SECOND. 


Prof.  Stuart  supposes  that  the  words  dvefirj  (dva(3aivo)v) 
dixb  rov  vdaroc,  m  Matt.  3  :  16;  Mark  1  :  10,  do  not  imply 
that  the.  baptism  was  performed  in  the  stream,  but  properly 
mean  no  more  than  that  Jesus  retired  from  the  water  of  the 
river,  by  going  up  its  banks.  He  confounds  the  walking  up 
out  of  the  water  with  the  emersion  of  the  candidate,  or  the 
rising  from  under  the  surface  of  the  water  to  a  standing  pos- 
ture, and  goes  on  to  argue  that  the  words  are  incapable  of 
such  a  sense,  because  (1).  The  emersion  was  a  part  of  the 
baptism,  and  the  baptism  is  said  to  have  been  completed 
before  he  went  up  from  the  water ;  in  other  words,  £/3a?r- 
rio^T]  includes  the  emersion,  and,  therefore,  the  idea  cannot 
be  supposed  to  be  repeated  in  the  word  dvsfir).  (2).  The 
verb  dvafiaivu)  is  never  used  to  signify  emerging  from  the 
water.  The  proper  word  for  this  is  dvadva) ;  but  this  verb 
is  never  commuted,  to  his  knowledge,  with  avafiaivoj,  which 
has  a  perfectly  distinct  usage,  and  is  certainly  never  used  in 
the  New  Testament  in  the  sense  of  emerging.  (3).  The 
preposition  dirb  will  not  allow  such  a  construction.  He  has 
found  no  example  where  it  is  applied  to  indicate  a  move- 
ment out  of  the  liquid  into  the  air.  To  all  this  I  reply,  that 
the  words  in  question  are  capable  of  being  referred  to  Jesus' 
emersion  from  under  the  surface  of  the  water;  for  (1)  the 
emersion  is  not  strictly  included  in  e^aTrriaO?].  Baptizo 
cannot  mean  at  the  same  time  both  immerge  and  emerge ; 
for  no  word  can  signify  at  the  same  time  two  exactly  oppo- 
site ideas.  The  idea  of  emersion  is  never  associated  with 
baptism  except  by  inference ;  and  this  depends  always  upon 
the  connection.  When  we  are  told  of  the  baptism  of  a  ship, 
or  that  Aristobulus  was  killed,  being  baptized  in  a  pool  by 


236  APPENDIX. 

order,  of  Herod,  we  do  not  think  of  an  emersion  ;  because  it 
is  not  contained  in  the  word,  and,  moreover,  the  connection 
forbids  it.  But  when  we  are  told  of  the  baptism  or  immer- 
sion of  persons  as  a  religious  act,  we  at  once  associate  the 
idea  of  emersion,  not,  however,  because  it  is  contained  in  the 
word  any  more  in  this  case  than  in  the  others ;  but  we  infer 
it  from  the  known  fact,  that  they  are  immersed  for  an  inno- 
cent purpose.  Hence,  as  emersion  belongs  to  the  rite  only 
by  implication,  the  Evangelist,  had  he  wished  to  express  the 
idea,  could,  without  any  tautology,  have  said  that  Jesus 
"  was  baptized  into  the  Jordan,  and  straightway  emerging 
from  the  water,  he  saw  the  heavens  opened."  (2).  The  verb 
dval3aivo)  is  used  to  signify  emersion  from  the  toatcr.  It  is 
employed  to  designate  ascending  motion  in  every  variety  of 
connection  ;  and  I  cannot  believe  that  any  one  would  ever 
have  thought  of  its  being  less  capable  of  signifying  ascension 
from  water,  than  from  any  other  substance,  unless  the  con- 
ceit had  been  suggested  by  a  preconceived  and  favourite  hy- 
pothesis. This  verb  is  used  to  denote  emersion  from  the 
water  in  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  Sect.  11,  ''And  there  was 
a  river  (Trora/ioc)  running  on  the  right  hand,  and  beautiful 
trees  rose  (or  grew)  up  out  of  it,  dv^j3atvev  e%  avTOv."  This 
example  is  unequivocal,  and  cannot  be  controverted.  Again, 
the  LXX.  employ  it  in  a  similar  sense  in  Ps.  104:  8 
(103:8),  ''The  mountains  rise  (dvafiaivovoiv),  and  the 
vallies  descend."  The  allusion  here  is  to  the  apparent 
rising  of  the  mountains  from  the  water,  at  the  abatement  of 
the  deluge.  The  verb  is  here  as  obviously  employed  in  its 
usual  and  proper  signification  as  when  we  speak  of  the  rising 
of  the  sun;  and  it  indisputably  means  rising  or  emerging 
from  the  water.  But  the  New  Testament  itself  affords  ex- 
amples of  such  a  meaning.  The  first  occurs  in  Matt.  17  :  27, 
"  Go  thou  to  the  sea,  and  cast  in  a  hook,  and  take  up  the 


APPENDIX.  237 

fish  that  first  cometh  uj>,  dvafHavra."  Bretschneider  explains 
the  verb  here  by  emirgo,  to  emerge,  and  the  modern  Greek 
by  efiyn,  coiueth  out,  emergcth.  If,  however,  this  should  not 
be  deemed  an  unequivocal  example,  one  may  be  found  in 
Rev.  13:  1,  "And  I  stood  upon  the  sand  of  the  sea,  and  saw 
a  beast  rising  up  out  of  the  sea,  £k  T7Jg  QaXdao-qq  dvafidtvov." 
This  is  an  unquestionable  example.  John  sees  one  beast 
rising  up  out  of  the  sea,  and  another  in  like  manner  rising  up 
out  of  the  earth  (v.  11).  The  imagery  here  is  the  same  as 
in  1  Sam.  28  :  13,  where  the  witch  of  Endor  professes  to 
have  a  view  of  gods  ascending  out  of  the  earth,  deovg  dva- 
(3aivovrag  etc  rrjg  y?)c,  or  according  to  Origen,  and  rrje. — and 
in  Pseudo-Ezra,  1.  4.  c.  13,  where  he  says  that  he  saw  in  a 
vision,  a  man,  or  as  it  was  afterwards  explained  to  him,  the 
Son  of  God,  ascending  out  of  the  midst  of  the  sea,  with  myriads 
of  celestial  attendants.  (3).  The  preposition  and  is  consistent 
with  the  idea  of  emersion  from  the  water.  It  is  frequently 
employed  to  express  this  idea,  e.  g.  Horn.  Hymn  to  Mercury, 
185.  "Aurora,  who  brings  light  to  mortals,  rose  from  the 
deep  flowing  ocean,  (bpvvr''  an-'  ojKeavoTo.1'  II.  19.  1,  "Aurora 
rose  from  the  food  of  the  ocean,  an''  (l)K£avoto  podhjv  djpvvd' ." 
Tobit  6:2,  "A  fish  leaped  from  the  river,  dnb  rov  norafxov.'''1 
In  these  examples,  and  certainly  indicates  a  movement  out 
of  a  liquid  into  the  air.  The  words  in  question,  therefore, 
are  clearly  capable  of  being  applied  to  Jesus'  emersion  from 
under  the  surface  of  the  water.  And  so  Dr.  Campbell  trans- 
lates the  passage.  This,  however,  is  not  the  most  natural 
sense  of  the  expression ;  nor  is  it  probably  the  true  one. 
The  writer  undoubtedly  refers,  not  to  the  rising  from  under 
the  surface,  but  to  the  going  up  from  the  water,  the  depart- 
ure commencing  at  the  spot  in  the  stream  where  the  bap- 
tism was  performed.  The  difference  between  etc  and  and  is, 
that  ek   supposes   intusposition,  and  dnb  contiguity  merely  ; 


238  APPENDIX. 

which  is  exactly  the  difference  between  out  of  and  from  ;  for 
in  English  usage,  out  of  always  signifies  departure  from 
within  the  object  mentioned,  while  from  only  expresses  de- 
parture from  a  point  in  contiguity  with  the  object  mentioned. 
Thus,  if  we  say  that  one  went  out  of  the  water,  it  is  signified 
that  he  had  been  in  it ;  but  if  we  say  that  he  went /ro»i  the 
water,  all  that  is  actually  expressed  is,  that  he  had  been  in 
contiguity  witli  it,  or  by  it.  But  though  from  does  not  actu- 
ally express  intusposition,  it  is,  nevertheless,  always  com- 
patible with  it,  that  is,  never  forbids  it.  Therefore,  when  it 
is  said  that  Jesus  went  up  from  the  water,  the  preposition 
does  not  oblige  us  to  suppose  that  he  started  from  the 
exterior  limit  of  the  water,  as  Prof.  Stuart  contends,  but  per- 
mits us  to  suppose  that  he  started  either  from  the  exterior 
limit,  or  from  any  point  within  the  interior  of  the  stream, 
as  the  connection  may  indicate ;  and  surely  the  connection 
here  indicates  that  the  departure  was  from  the  interior  of  the 
stream  ;  for  it  is  stated  that  he  was  baptized  into  the  stream, 
and  then  went  up  immediately  from  the  water.  Now,  it  is 
naturally  signified  by  this,  that  after  being  baptized,  he  walked 
up  out  of  the  water ;  and  so  it  would  be  understood  by 
ninety-nine  readers  out  of  a  hundred.  It  is  admitted  that 
the  preposition  does  not  of  itself  determine  that  he  started 
from  the  interior,  of  the  stream  ;  yet  I  have  never  before  met 
with  the  philologist  who  contended  that  it  excluded  that  idea. 
As  to  whether  dvafiatveiv  can  denote  walking  or  going  up 
in  the  water,  in  order  to  depart  out  of  it,  the  reader  can  need 
no  proof  of  that  point,  since  he  must  have  met  with  the  verb 
in  that  sense,  in  its  various  forms  of  .composition,  on  almost, 
every  page  of  the  classics.  Prof.  Stuart's  remarks  on 
Ka-afiaivuv  elc,  in  Acts  8  :  38,  are  equally  at  war  with 
Greek  usage,  as  well  as  with  the  common  principles  of  philol- 
ogy, and  are  altogether  unworthy  of  their  learned  author. 


APPENDIX,'  239 

The  argument  that  the  expression  cannot  mean  (joing  down 
into  the  water,  because  it  is  the  counterpart  or  antithesis  of 
dvafiaiveiv  ano,  is  nothing  to  his  purpose,  inasmuch  as  this 
latter  expression  does  not  mean  going  up  the  banks  of  the 
river,  but  signifies  literally  and  inevitably,  going  up  out  of 
the  water.  The  preposition  elg  with  Karafiaiveiv,  in  every 
instance  which  Prof.  Stuart  has  cited  to  prove  the  meaning 
to,  literally  signifies  into,  namely,  in  Luke  10:30;  John 
2  :  12  ;  Acts  7  :  15,  8  :  26,  14  :  25,  16  :  8,  18  :  14,  22,  25  :  6. 
To  say  that  one  is  going  towards  Jericho,  Capernaum,  or 
Egypt,  as  the  case  may  be,  is  one  expression  ;  to  say  that 
he  is  going  to  the  place  is  another  expression ;  and  to  say 
that  he  is  going  into  it  is  another  expression  still.  In  each 
case  the  preposition  has  its  proper  and  distinctive  meaning. 
\t'  it  be  objected  that  the  man  who  is  represented  as  going 
into  Jericho,  did  not  actually  enter  into  Jericho,  it  is  suffi- 
cient to  reply,  that  the  expression  does  not  contain  that. 
The  writer  says  simply  that  he  was  going  down  into  Jericho  ; 
for  he  here  uses  the  imperfect,  and  not  the  aorist,  as  in  the 
other  passages.  The  man  was  in  the  act  of  going  down  into 
Jericho.  All  this  was  strictly  true,  and  the  expression  means 
no  more.  If  it  be  said  that  one  is  felling  a  tree,  the  word 
fell  is  entitled  to  its  usual  meaning,  whatever  the  event  may 
be.  The  man  is  supposed  to  be  really  in  fhe  act  of  felling 
the  tree,  though  something  should  occur  to  prevent  the  com 
pletion  of  the  act.  This  is  a  universal  principle  in  language. 
The  preposition  elg  has,  therefore,  beyond  all  doubt,  its  usual 
meaning  in  all  these  passages  ;  and  so  it  has  in  Luke  8  :  23, 
and  Rev.  13  :  13,  where,  however,  Prof.  Ripley  is  disposed 
to  concede  that  it  signifies  on,  rather  than  into.  The  literal 
meaning  of  Luke  8  :  23  is,  There  came  down  a  storm  of  wind 
into  the  lake.  Rev.  13 :  13  likewise  means  literally,  He 
maketh  fire  come  down  out  of  heaven  into  the  earth.     It  is  true 


240  APPENDIX. 

the  Greeks,  as  well  as  we,  could  say  "on  the  lake,"  and  "  on 
the  earth,"  but  in  that  case  the  preposition  would  be  em,  and 
not  e/c.  The  phrases  "into  the  lake,"  "into  the  earth,"  in 
such  connections  as  these,  like  the  expressions  "  into  the  field," 
"into  the  mountain,"  &c,  are  spoken  with  reference  to  the 
circumferential  limits.  As  to  the  remark,  that  ifi(3alvG)  is 
the  appropriate  expression  to  signify  entrance  into  any  place 
or  thing,  and  that  the  writer  should  have  used  this  instead  of 
narafiaiveiv  elc,  if  he  had  wished  to  signify  that  Philip  and 
the  eunuch  went  down  into  the  water,  it  has  not  the  least 
weight  whatever.  The  one  expression  means  to  go  in,  and 
the  other  to  go  down  into,  and  the  reader  may  judge  for 
himself  whether  the  latter  does  not  express  entrance  into,  at 
least  as  decisively  as  the  former.  Prof.  Stuart,  a  few  pages 
back,  when  iv  came  up  in  connection  with  )3a7rrt£to,  con- 
tended that  elc  was  the  proper  word  for  expressing  the  idea 
of  into  ;  but  now  that  elg  actually  occurs,  he  would  have  us 
believe  that  it  means  only  to  or  towards,  and  that  iv  is  the 
only  word  that  can  take  us  into  the  water.  Consistency  is  a 
precious  jewel,  and  the  more  so,  seeing  that  it  is  so  rarely 
to  be  met  with,  especially  among  controvertists.  The  in- 
sinuation that  Kara(3aiveiv  cannot,  agreeably  to  usage,  be 
spoken  of  going  down  into  the  water,  is  perfectly  unphilo- 
logical  and  contrary  to  fact;  for  this  is  one  of  its  most 
common  applications.  ^Esop  uses  it  in  a  single  Fable  (Fab. 
127)  no  less  than  four  times  in  this  sense.  What  would  a 
native  Greek  think  of  this  insinuation  of  the  learned  Pro- 
fessor, that  fSaiveiv  cannot  be  employed  to  express  walking 
in  water,  either  with  respect  to  going  down  into  it,  going  up 
out  of  it,  when  this  very  word  i^  almost  the  only  one  they 
use  to  signify  going  through  or  fording  a  stream  or  body  "I' 
water,  which,  of  course,  includes  both  going  down  into  it,  and 
going  up  out  of  it?     Indeed,  what  must  any  Well-instructed 


APPENDIX.  241 

philologist  think  ot'  any  and  every  one  of  his  criticisms  on 
Karaj3ai,vetv  e/c  and  dvaj3alveiv  drro  1  Of  themselves  they 
do  not  seem  to  me  to  merit  a  serious  refutation  ;  but  for  the 
sake  of  those  who  have  but  an  imperfect  knowledge  of  Greek, 
I  have  thought  it  best  to  expose  their  fallacy. 


NOTE  THIRD. 

The  celebrated  Jewish  writer,  Maimonides,  who  flourished 
in  the  twelfth  century,  says :  "  Whenever  any  Gentile  wishes 
to  be  received  into  the  covenant  of  Israel,  and  associated  with 
them,  circumcision,  baptism,  and  voluntary  t  offering  are  re- 
quired. If  the  person  be  a  female,  then  only  baptism  and 
offering." — Issure  Biah,  cap.  13.  Indeed  it  is  a  common 
maxim  among  the  Jews,  that  there  is  no  proselyte,  until  he  is 
circumcised  and  baptized.  But  whether  the  custom  of  prose- 
lyte baptism  existed  as  early  as  the  commencement  of  the 
Christian  era,  is  a  disputed  point  among  the  learned.  Prof. 
Stuart  has  an  elaborate  article  on  the  subject,  in  which  he 
enters  into  a  pretty  minute  examination  of  the  evidence  in 
the  case.  His  results  are  substantially  as  follows :  The  bap- 
tism of  proselytes  is  no  where  enjoined  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment; and  the  Jewish  writers  who  flourished  about  the 
commencement  of  the  Christian  era,  viz.,  Philo,  Josephus, 
and  the  Chaldee  paraphrasts  Onkelos  and  Jonathan,  all  ob- 
serve a  profound  and  universal  silence  respecting  the  exist- 
ence of  such  a  custom  at  the  time  their  respective  works  were 
written.  The  earliest  mention  of  proselyte  baptism  is  in  the 
Mishna,  written  by  Rabbi  Judah  the  Holy,  about  A.  D.  220, 
where  the  author  says :  "  As  to  a  proselyte,  who  becomes  a 
proselyte  on  the  evening  of  the  passover,  the  followers  of 
Shammai  say,  Let  him  be  baptized  (tooval),  and  let  him  eat  of 
11 


242  -  APPENDIX. 

the  passover  in  the  evening :  but  the  disciples  of  Hillel  say, 
'  He  who  separates  himself  from  the  prepuce,  separates  himself 
from  a  sepulchre,'  i.  e.,  he  has  need  still  of  such  repeated  lus- 
trations as  one  must  practice,  who  has  been  polluted  by  a  dead 
body  in  the  grave." — Tract.  Pesahhim.  c.  8,  §  8.  The  Mish- 
nical  author  does  not  here  say  that  Hillel  and  Shammai  did 
themselves  agitate  the  question  about  the  baptism  of  prose- 
lytes ;  but  it  was  a  subject  of  dispute  among  their  followers 
at  the  time  he  wrote.  In  allusion  to  this  passage  in  the 
Mishna,  and  by  way  of  explanation  of  it,  the  Jerusalem  Tal- 
mud, which  is  supposed  to  have  been  written  during  the 
latter  part  of  the  third  century,  in  Tract.  Pesah.  p.  36,  c.  2, 
represents  Rabbi  Eliezer,  the  son  of  Jacob,  as  saying,  that 
some  Roman  soldiers,  who  kept  guard  at  Jerusalem,  ate  of 
the  passover,  being  baptized  on  the  evening  of  the  passover.  In 
the  Babylonish  Talmud  it  is  stated,  Cod.  Jevamoth,  fol.  46, 
"  As  to  a  proselyte  who  is  circumcised,  but  not  baptized, 
what  of  him?  Rabbi  Eliezer  says:  'Behold  he  is  a  prose- 
lyte ;  for  thus  we  find  it  concerning  our  fathers,  that  they 
were  circumcised,  but  not  baptized.'  But  as  to  one  who  is 
baptized,  and  is  not  circumcised,  what  of  him1?  Rabbi  Joshua 
says  :  '  Behold  he  is  a  proselyte ;  for  thus  we  find  it  respect- 
ing maid-servants,  who  were  baptized,  but  not  circumcised.' 
But  the  wise  men  say  :  '  Is  he  baptized,  but  not  circum- 
cised ;  or  is  he  circumcised,  but  not  baptized ;  he  is  not  a 
proselyte  until  he  is  circumcised  and  baptized.'" 

Excepting  the  testimony  of  the  Mishna,  all  that  we  can  gath- 
er from  the  Rabbinic  writers  is,  that  some  time  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  third  century,  when  the  Jerusalem  Talmud  was 
written,  the  custom  of  baptizing  proselytes  was  common  ; 
still  more  so  did  it  become  during  the  times  when  the  Baby- 
lonian Talmud  was  written*;  i,  c,  from  the  commencement 
of  the  fifth  century  onward,  some  two  hundred  or  more  years. 


APPENDIX.  Zio 

On  the  whole  we  must  admit,  that,  independently  of  the 
Scriptures,  we  have  evidence  that  ought  to  satisfy  us,  that, 
at  the  commencement  of  the  third  century,  the  custom  of 
proselyte  baptism  was  practiced  among  the  Jews ;  and  if  the 
case  of  the  Roman  soldierSj  related  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud 
as  stated  above,  be  truly  represented,  then,  even  while  the 
temple  was  standing,  proselyte  baptism  must  have  been 
known.  We  may,  therefore,  come  safely  to  the  conclusion, 
that  such  baptism  was  practiced  at,  or  not  long  after,  the  time 
when  the  second  temple  was  destroyed.  But  we  are  destitute 
of  any  earthly  testimony  to  the  practice  of  proselyte  bap- 
tism, antecedently  to  the  Christian  era.  The  original  insti- 
tution of  admitting  Jews  to  the  covenant,  and  strangers  to 
the  same,  prescribed  no  other  rite  than  that  of  circumcision. 
No  account  of  any  other  is  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  none 
in  the  Apocrapha,  New  Testament,  Targums  of  Onkelos, 
Jonathan,  Joseph  the  blind,  or  in  the  work  of  any  other 
Targumist  excepting  Pseudo-Jonathan,  whose  work  belongs 
'  to  the  seventh  or  eighth  century.  No  evidence  is  found  in 
Philo,  Josephus,  or  any  of  the  earlier  Christian  writers. 

Such  is  the  conclusion  at  which  Professor  Stuart  arrives ; 
and  he  thinks,  inasmuch  as  it  is  on  all  hands  conceded  that 
proselyte  baptism  among  the  Jews  consisted  in  immersion, 
that  this  subject  has  an  important  bearing  on  the  question  of 
Christian  baptism.  I  do  not  conceive,  however,  that  it  has 
the  least  bearing  on  this  subject  whatever.  Admitting  that 
the  baptism  of  proselytes  prevailed  among  the  Jews  at  the 
commencement  of  the  Christian  era,  it  would  be  a  most  pre- 
posterous supposition,  that  Christ  borrowed  a  distinguished 
ordinance  of  his  kingdom  from  that  custom.  Christian  bap- 
tism had  a  divine,  not  a  human  origin.  See  John  1  :  33 ; 
Matt.  21  :  25  ;  Mark  1:1:4.  I  agree  with  Prof.  Stuart, 
that  the  passages  in  Tacitus,  Hist.  v.  5,  and  the  Epictetu.s  of 


244  APPENDIX. 

Arrian,  L.  2.  c.  9,  which  have  sometimes  been  supposed  to 
relate  to  proselyte  baptism,  have  no  reference  whatever  to 
that  custom.  But  I  cannot  suppose  with  him,  that  Arrian 
refers  to  the  ordinary  ablutions  of  the  Jews.  His  words 
are,  according  to  Prof.  Stuart's  translation,  "  Why  dost  thou 
call  thyself  a  Stoic1?  Why  dost  thou  deceive  the  multi- 
tude? Why  dost  thou,  being  a  Jew,  play  the  hypocrite 
with  the  Greek  ?  Dost  thou  not  see  how  any  one  is  called 
a  Jew,  how  a  Syrian,  how  an  Egyptian  ?  And  when  we  see 
any  one  acting  with  both  parties,  we  are  wont  to  say,  He  is 
no  Jew,  but  he  plays  the  hypocrite.  But  when,  avaXafiq 
to  irddog  rov  ftefia^ievov  K.al  T\p7]\iivov,  he  takes  on  him 
the  state  and  feelings  of  one  who  is  washed  or  baptized  (/3e- 
ftafiiitvov),  and  has  attached  himself  to  the  sect,  then  he  is, 
in  truth,  and  is  called,  a  Jew.  But  we  are,  Trapaj3aiTTioTai, 
transgressors  as  to  our  baptism,  or  falsely  baptized,  if  we  are 
like  a  Jew  in  pretence,  and  something  else  in  reality,"  etc. 
The  writer  is  speaking  particularly  of  public  teachers,  and 
endeavours  to  expose  the  absurdity  of  their  inculcating  prin- 
ciples which  they  did  not  practice.  By  a  Jew,  I  think  he 
undoubtedly  means  a  Christian.  It  is  well  known  that  Jews 
and  Christians  were  often  confounded  in  the  writings  of  pro- 
fane authors.  I  take  /3e(3am.ievov  in  its  metaphorical  sense, 
and  would  translate  the  whole  passage  thus :  "  Why  dost 
thou  call  thyself  a  Stoic?  Why  dost  thou  deceive  the  multi- 
tude ?  Why  dost  thou,  being  a  Jew,  play  the  hypocrite  with 
the  Greek  ?  Dost  thou  not  see  how  any  one  is  called  a  Jew, 
how  a  Syrian,  how  an  Egyptian?  And  when  we  see  any 
one  acting  with  both  parties,  we  are  wont  to  say,  He  is  no 
Jew,  but  he  plays  the  hypocrite.  But  when  he  assumes  the 
feelings  of  one  who  is  imbued  [with  their  doctrine],  and  united 
with  the  sect,  then  he  is  in  truth  a  Jew,  and  is  so  called.  And 
so  we  are  false,  or  adulterated  baptizers  (-napafia-JTiOTai), 


APPENDIX.  245 

Jews  in  word,  but  something  else  in  deed,  if  our  feeling  (dis- 
position or  temper)  do  not  correspond  with  our  profession. 
The  verb  bapto,  often  signifieSj  metaphorically,  to  imbue  with 

a  sentiment  or  doctrine,  as  has  already  been  shown  above  ; 
and  as  the  writer  is  speaking  of  public  teachers,  that  is,  of 
philosophers  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  Christian  teachers  on 
the  other,  it  seems  requisite  to  take  parabaptistai  in  its  ap- 
propriate sense  of  baptizers,  as  I  have  rendered  it. 


VERSIONS. 

Though  the  authority  of  versions,  either  ancient  or  mod- 
ern, cannot  be  admitted  as  decisive  in  regard  to  the  meaning 
of  baptizo ;  yet  such  of  them  a?  were  made  in  those  parts 
where,  and  in  an  age  when,  the  meaning  of  the  word  was  per- 
fectly understood,  and  could  not  have  been  mistaken ;  while 
the  pi-actice  of  all  Christians  in  respect  to  baptism  was  uni- 
form, and  while,  of  course,  there  existed  no  sectarian  motives 
either  to  conceal  or  pervert  its  meaning ;  such  of  the  versions 
as  were  made  under  these  circumstances,  especially  if  they 
harmonize,  in  their  results,  with  other  acknowledged  prin- 
ciples of  interpretation,  must  be  supposed  to  furnish  strong 
corroborative  proof  of  the  true  import  of  the  word. 

Ancient  and  Modern  Oriental  Versions. 

Syriac. — The^  old  Syriac,  or  Peshito,  is  acknowledged  to 
be  the  most  ancient,  as  well  as  one  of  the  most  accurate  ver- 
sions of  the  New  Testament  extant.  It  was  made  at  least 
as  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  in  the  very 
country  where  the  apostles  lived  and  wrote,  and  where  both 
the  Syriac  and  the  Greek  were  constantly  used  and  perfectly 


2-16  APPENDIX. 

understood.  Of  course  it  was  executed  by  those  who  under- 
stood and  spoke  both  languages  precisely  as  the  sacred  writers 
themselves  understood  and  spoke  them.  Michaelis,  whose 
competency  to  judge  of  its  merits  will  not  be  disputed,  pro- 
nounced it  to  be  the  very  best  translation  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament which  he  ever  read,  for  the  general  ease,  elegance, 
and  fidelity  with  which  it  is  executed.  All  the  Christian 
sects  in  Syria  and  the  East  make  use  of  this  version  exclu- 
sively ;  and  within  a  few  years  past,  it  has  been  reprinted 
and  extensively  circulated  among  them,  at  the  expense  of 
the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society.  This  version  renders 
baptizo  and  its  derivatives  uniformly  by  amad,  and  its  cor- 
responding derivatives.  All  the  authorities  agree  in  assign- 
ing to  this  word  the  primary  and  leading  signification  of  im- 
mersion. Prof.  Stuart,  so  far  as  I  know,  is  the  first  who 
ever  suggested  a  doubt  of  this  meaning.  "  The  Syriac,"  he 
observes,  "has  a  word,  tzeva,  like  the  Chaldee  3>n:r  tzeva,  and 
the  corresponding,  Hebrew  yna,  tava,  which  means  to  plunge, 
dip,  immerse,  etc.  Why  should  it  employ  the  word  amad, 
then,  in  order  to  render  haptizo,  ?  In  the  Old  Testament  it 
is  employed  in  the  like  sense,  only  in  Numbers  31  :  23. 
There  is  no  analogy  of  kindred  languages  to  support  the  sense 
in  question  of  the  Syriac  amad.  The  Hebrew,  Chaldee,  and 
Arabic  all  agree  in  assigning  to  the  same  word  the  sense  of 
the  Latin  stare,  perstare,  fulcire,  roborare.  It  is  hardly  credi- 
ble, that  the  Syriac  word  could  vary  so  much  from  all  these 
languages  as  properly  to  mean  immerse,  dip,  etc.  We  come 
almost  necessarily  to  the  conclusion,  then,  inasmuch  as  the 
Syriac  has  an  appropriate  word  which  signifies  to  dip,  plunge, 
immerse  (tzeva),  and  yet  it  is  never  employed  in  the  Peshilo, 
that  the  translator  did  not  deem  it  important  to  designate 
any  particular  mode  of  baptism,  but  only  to  designate  the 
rite  by  a  term  which  evidently  appears  to  mean  confirm, 


APPENDIX.  247 

establish,  etc.  Baptism,  then,  in  the  language  of  the  Peshito, 
is  the  rite  of  confirmation  simply,  while  the  manner  of  this  is 
apparently  left  without  being  at  all  expressed." 

1.  I  would  observe,  in  reply  to  this,  that  it  is  contrary  to  the 
canons  of  criticism,  to  make  the  meaning  of  theSyriac  word 
entirely  dependent  on  the  usage  of  the  kindred  languages, 
even  though  these  several  words  were  proved  to  be  identical. 
Michaelis,  however,  in  his  Syriac  Lexicon,  under  the  word 
amad,  remarks  that,  in  his  opinion,  it  is  evidently  derived  not 
from  the  Hebrew  amad,  to  stand,  but  from  the  Arabic  ghamat, 
to  submerge.  The  signification  to  stand,  he  says  he  does  not 
find  at  all  in  the  Syriac,  unless  it  be  contained  in  the  derivate, 
amud,  a  pillar  ;  which  usually  occurs  in  the  phrase,  "  a  pil- 
lar of  cloud,"  or  "a  pillar  of  fire."*  2.  Though  the  Syrians 
had  a  score  of  words  signifying  immersion,  it  would  not  fol- 
low that  amad  has  not  a  similar  meaning.  The  Greeks  have 
several  words  to  express  this  act,  as  bapto,  baptizo,  dupto,  etc., 
of  which  baptizo  alone  is  used  to  designate  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism ;  and  yet  Prof.  Stuart  admits  that  baptizo  signifies  im- 
mersion. But  amad,  though  the  Peshito  happens  to  employ 
it  exclusively,  is  not  the  only  word  used  in  the  Syriac  to 
translate  baptizo.  The  very  word  (tzeva)  which  Professor 
Stuart  mentions  as  properly  signifying  immersion,  is  often 
used  to  designate  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  Prof.  Stuart, 
with  Michaelis  in  his  hands,  cannot  be  ignorant  of  this. — See 
Mich.  Lex.  Syr.,  under  the  word,  and  authorities  there  refer- 

*  In  bae  baptizandi  significatione  conferunt  baud  pauci  cum  Heb- 
raico  "fey  stetlt,  ita  ut,  stare,  sit  stare  in  flumine,  illoque  mergi.  Mihi 
verisiruilius,  diversum  plane  ab  -;££,  literarumque  aliquapermutatione 
ortum  ex  suhmergere.  Stanti  signiflcationem,  reliquis,  Unguis  orien- 
talibus  communem  apud  Syros  non  reperio,  nisi  in  derivato,  quod 
sequitur,  amud,  quod  ex  uno  loco  Castello  citatur  fere  ubique  reperics, 
wbis  et  i2^  TifaJ  columna  ignis,  legitur. 


248  APPENDIX. 

red  to.  3.  The  assertion  that  amad  evidently  appears  to 
mean  confirm,  establish,  etc.,  is  entirely  gratuitous.  Where 
is  the  evidence  of  this  meaning  ?  Is  it  in  usage  1  Not  in 
the  usage  of  the  New  Testament,  surely.  It  is  not  credible 
that  Prof.  Stuart,  upon  mature  reflection,  would  be  willing 
to  read  Luke  11  :  38,  "  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he 
marvelled  that  he  [Jesus]  had  not  first  confirmed  him- 
self {amad)  before  dinner."  Mark  7:4:  "  And  when  they 
come  from  the  market,  except  they  confirm  themselves 
(amadin),  they  eat  not.  And  many  other  things  there  be, 
which  they  have  received  to  hold;  as  the  confirmation 
(maamuditha)  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and 
tables."  Heb.  6:  1,2:  "Therefore,  leaving  the  principles 
of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfection ;  not 
laying  again  the  foundation  of  repentance  from  dead  works, 
and  of  faith  toward  God,  and  of  the  doctrine  of  confirmations 
(maamuditha).  Chap.  9  :  10,  "  Which  stood  only  in  meats 
and  drinks,  and  divers  confirmations  (maamuditha)."  Such 
an  interpretation,  if  it  does  not  make  nonsense  of  these  pas- 
sages, is  an  entire  perversion  of  their  meaning.  The  Greek, 
Roman,  and  Episcopal  churches  have  a  ceremony  of  con- 
firmation, in  which  the  baptismal  vows  of  the  candidate, 
originally  made  through  the  intervention  of  sponsors,  are 
confirmed,  or  ratified  ;  but  to  call  baptism  itself  a  confirma- 
tion, isr  at  least,  a  novel  use  of  the  term  ;  and  what  idea  is 
to  be  attached  to  the  word  in  this  connection,  I  am  at  a  loss 
to  conceive.  The  idea  of  "confirmation"  or  "establish- 
ment" is  introduced  in  the  New  Testament  some  scores  of 
times,  but  never  in  a  single  instance  is  it  expressed  by  amad. 
The  word  does  not  occur  in  this  sense  in  the  Old  Testament, 
nor  indeed  in  any  author  whatever.  Is  any  evidence  of  this 
meaning  to  be  derived  from  the  Lexicons?  Not  one  of 
them  acknowledge  it.     Castell  defines  the  word  ablutus  est, 


APPENDIX.  249 

baptizatus  est,  immersit;  to  bathe,  baptize,  immerse. — See 
Castel.  Lex.  Heptaglot.  sub.  vc.  London,  1069.  Michaelis 
defines  it,  ablutus  est,  baptizatus  est,  immersit ;  to  bathe,  bap- 
tize, immerse  ;  and  adds,  as  has  already  been  observed,  that 
it  comes  from  the  Arabic  ghamat,  to  immerge. — See  Mich. 
Lex.  Syr.  sub.  vc.  Gottingen,  1788.  Schaaf  defines  it  ablutus 
se,  ablutus,  intinctus,  immersus  in  aquam,  baptizatus  est;  to 
bathe  one's  self,  to  bathe,  dip,  immerse  into  ivater,  baptize. — See 
Schaaf  Lex.  Syr.  sub.  vc.  Lyons,  1708.  Guido  Fabricus  de- 
fines it  baptizavit,  intinxit,  lavit;  to  baptize,  dip,  bathe. — See 
Lex.  Syro.  Chal.  accompanying  the  Antwerp  Polyglot,  sub. 
vc.  Antwerp,  1592.  Schindler  assigns  baptizatus,  in  aquam 
immersus,  tinctus,  lotus  fuit;  to  baptize,  immerse  into  water, 
dip,  bathe. — See  Schind.  Lex.  Panteglot.  sub.  vc.  Hanover, 
1612.  Buxtorf  gives  baptizari,  intingi,  ablui,  abluere  se  ;  to 
bajAize,  dip,  bathe  one's  self. — See  Buxtorf.  Lex.  Chal.  et  Syr. 
Basle,  1622.  Beza,  after  remarking  that  baptizo  properly 
means  to  immerse,  and  never  to  tvash,  except  as  a  conse- 
quence of  immersion,  says:  "Nee  alia  est  significatio  verbi 
-\72°$  quo  utuntur  Syri  pro  baptizari ;  nor  does  the  signification 
of '  amad]  lohich  the  Syrians  use  for  '  baptize,''  differ  at  all 
from  this.'" — See  Bezse  Annot.  in  Marc.  7  :  4. 

Against  this  array  of  authorities,  I  apprehend  it  will  require 
something  more  than  mere  conjecture,  to  set  aside  the  estab- 
lished and  acknowledged  meaning  of  this  word.  Indeed  I 
confess  I  have  not  the  perspicacity  to  discover  how  Prof. 
Stuart  can  consistently  admit  that  the  word  is  used  to  signify 
immersion,  in  Num.  31  :  23,  and  at  the  same  time,  undertake 
to  prove  that  it  has  not  this  meaning  at  all.  If  it  signifies 
immersion  in  one  instance,  it  may  in  a  hundred.  If  it  has 
this  meaning  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  may  have  the  same 
meaning  in  the  New. 

Ethiopic,  or  Abyssinian. — It  is  generally  agreed  that  the 
11* 


250  APPENDIX. 

ancient  Abyssinian  version  in  the  Gheez,  or  dialect,  appro- 
priated to  religion,  should  be  dated  as  early  as  the  introduc- 
tion of  Christianity  into  that  empire,  that  is,  rather  earlier 
than  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century.  This  version  trans- 
lates baptizo  by  ptta,  tamak,  which  Castell  says  agrees  (con- 
venit  cum)  in  signification  with  Sit:,  tava  ;  and  this  he  de- 
fines, immersus,  demersus/  submersus,  fixus,  infixus  fuit ;  to 
immerge,  demerge,  submerge,  fix,  infix. 

Amharic. — The  version  in  the  Amharic,  or  common  dia- 
lect of  Ethiopia,  renders  baptizo  by  the  same  word  p>atj  as  the 
ancient  Ethiopic,  or  Gheez.  The  Amharic  version,  published 
by  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  m  1822,  was  made 
by  Mr.  Abraham,  a  learned  Ethiopian,  under  the  superin- 
tendence of  M.  Asselin,  the  French  Vice  Consul  at  Cairo. 

Armenian,  ancient. — The  ancient  Armenian  version  is 
universally  ascribed  to  Miesrob,  the  inventor  of  the  Arme- 
nian alphabet,  and  to  the  patriarch  Isaac,  at  the  end  of  the 
fourth,  or  early  in  the  fifth  century. — See  Home's  Introduc- 
tion, vol.  ii.  p.  208.  This  version  translates  baptizo  uniformly 
by  mugurdcl,  which  is  also  employed  in  2  Kings  5  :  14, 
where  Naaman  is  said  to  have  dipped  himself  in  the  Jordan. 
This  word,  according  to  Father  Pascal  Aucher,  signifies  "  to 
baptize  ;  to  wash  by  plunging  into  water;"  and  it  is  applied 
to  both  persons  and  things — See  Dictionary  of  Armenian  and 
English,  by  Father  Pascal  Aucher,  D.D.  Venice,  1825. 
Also  Dictionary  of  the  Armenian  Language,  by  Mekitar 
Vartabed.     Venice,  1749. 

Armenian,  modern. —  The  modern  Armenian  version 
employs  the  same  word  as  the  ancient  Armenian  in  translat- 
ing "baptizo,"  and  its  derivatives.  The  Russian  Bible  So- 
ciety, and  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  have  printed 
and  circulated  editions  of  both  the  ancient  and  modern  Ar- 
menian Scriptures. 


APPENDIX.  251 

Georgian. — The  Georgian  version,  which,  according  to 
the  tradition  of  the  Greek  Church,  was  originally  made  in 
the  eighth  century, by  Euphemius,  the  Georgian,  and  founder 
of  the  Ibirian  or  Georgian  Monastery,  at  Mount  Athos,  em- 
ploys the  word,  nathlistemad,  as  a  translation  of  baptizo. 
For  the  meaning  of  this  word,  I  have  no  access  to  the  appro- 
priate lexicons,  but  would  refer  the  reader  to  the  authority 
of  the  learned  Mr.  Robert  Robinson,  author  of  "  The  History 
of  Baptism,"  who  states  that  all  the  ancient  eastern  versions 
render  the  Greek  word  baptizo  in  the  sense  of  dipping. — See 
Rob.  Hist.  Bap.  p.  7.     London,  1790. 

Coptic. — The  Coptic  was  the  ancient  dialect  of  Lower 
Egypt.  During  the  first  ages,  the  Christian  Scriptures  were 
read  by  the  churches  of  Egypt,  in  the  original  Greek.  The 
Coptic  version  has  been  supposed  by  some  to  have  been  exe- 
cuted in  the  second  century.  This,  however,  is  not  certain. 
The  learned  Louis  Picques  in  Le  Long,  Biblioth  Sac.  pars. 
i.  p.  287,  refers  it  to  the  fifth  century.  This  version  trans- 
lates baptizo  by  TQMC  tomas.  For  the  meaning  of  this 
word,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  authority  of  Mr.  Robin- 
son, as  above ;  and  also  to  that  of  the  Baptist  Mission  Com- 
mittee, who,  in  a  recent  official  document  addressed  to  the 
Committee  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  and 
relating  to  the  subject  of  translations,  expressly  mention  the 
Coptic  as  rendering  baptizo  in  the  sense  of  immersion. — See 
Annual  Report  of  the  Ehg.  Bap.  Miss.  Society,  for  1844, 
p.  32. 

Sahidic. — The  Sahidic  version,  or  that  in  the  dialect  of 
Upper  Egypt,  appears,  from  the  arguments  adduced  by  Dr. 
Woide,  to  have  been  executed  at  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century.  It  is  unquestionably  one  of  the  oldest  versions  in 
existence ;  and  is  esteemed  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the 
criticism  of  the  Greek  Testament,     This  ver.sion  I  have  not 


252  APPENDIX. 

seen.  For  the  manner  in  which  it  renders  baptizo,  the  reader 
is  referred  to  the  authority  of  Mr.  Robinson,  as  above. 

Arabic. — There  are  several  Arabic  versions  of  the  New 
Testament,  supposed  to  have  been  principally  executed  be- 
tween the  seventh  and  eleventh  centuries,  after  this  language 
had  supplanted  the  Syriac  and  Egyptian.  There  are  likewise 
more  modern  translations  into  this  language.  The  Arabic 
versions  render  baptizo  usually  by  amad,  tzabag,  or  galas. 
"  Amad,"  according  to  Schindler,  "signifies  the  same  in  Arabic 
as  in  Syriac,  baptizatus,  in  aquam  immersus,  tinctus,  lotus 
fuit;"  to  baptize,  immerse  into  water,  dip,  bathe  ;  Castell,  "  ut 
Syr.  baptizavit,"  the  same  as  the  Syriac,  to  baptize  ;  Schaaf, 
"  tinxit,  baptizavat,"  to  dip,  to  baptize.  "  Tzabag,"  according 
to  Castell,  is  "tinxit  panem,  imbuet  (Isa.  63  :  4),  immersit 
manum  in  aquam,  baptizavit  (per  immersionem)  ;"  to  dip  as 
bread  in  sauce,  to  dye,  to  immerse  as  the  hand  into  water,  to 
baptize  by  immersion.  "  Gatas,"  according  to  Schindler,  is 
"  natavit,  urinavit,  mersit,  submersit,  immersit  sub  aquam, 
baptizavit ;"  to  swim,  to  dive,  plunge,  submerge,  immerse  under 
water,  baptize.  If,  therefore,  these  lexicographers  are  to  be 
trusted,  Prof.  Stuart  is  evidently  mistaken  in  supposing  with 
respect  to  the  Syrian  amad,  that  the  signification  "  to  im- 
merse" is  unsupported  by  the  analogy  of  kindred  languages. 
The  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  and  the  London  So- 
ciety for  promoting  Christian  Knowledge,  have,  within  a  few 
years  past,  put  in  circulation  several  editions  of  the  Arabic 
New  Testament. 

Persian. — The  Persian  translations  of  the  New  Testament 
are  all  quite  modern.  The  most  ancient  is  the  one  by  Simon 
Ibn  Joseph  Al  Tabrizi,  a  Roman  Catholic,  made  about  A.  D. 
1341,  and  including  only  the  four  Gospels. — See  Le  Long, 
Biblioth.  Sacr.  Pars.  i.  p.  269.  Another  version  of  the  Gos- 
pels, by  Lieut.  Colonel  Colebrooke,  was  published  at  Calcutta 


APPENDIX.  253 

in  1804.  A  version  of  the  entire  New  Testament  in  Persian 
was  completed  in  1812,  by  Meer  Seyd  Ali,  under  the  super- 
intendence of  the  late  Rev.  Henry  Martyn,  which  was  sub- 
sequently printed  at  Petersburg,  Calcutta,  and  London.  The 
Persian  designates  the  ordinance  of  baptism  by  shastanah, 
ghusl,  and  the  derivate  of  amad.  The  two  former  express 
ablution  :  the  last  has  the  same  meaning  in  the  Persian  as  in 
the  Arabic. 

Turkish. — A  Turkish  version  of  the  New  Testament,  by 
Dr.  Lazarus  Seaman,  was  published  at  Oxford  in  1666 ;  and 
in  the  same  year  a  translation  of  the  whole  Bible  into  the 
Turkish  language  was  completed  by  Albertus  Boboosky,  in- 
terpreter to  the  Porte.  This  manuscript  remained  at  Leyden 
unpublished,  till  Dr.  Pinkerton,  having  ascertained  its  value, 
recommended  it  to  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  at 
whose  expense  the  New  Testament  was  published  in  1819. 
This  version  designates  the  act  of  baptism  by  the  derivate 
of  amad,  the  same  word  that  is  used  in  the  Arabic  and  Per- 
sian, and  expressing  the  same  sense. 

Tartar. — The  Orenberg  Tartar,  published  a  few  years 
since  by  the  Russian  Bible  Society,  and  which  is  the  only 
Tartar  version  I  have  seen,  translates  the  word  in  question 
by  amad,  following  the  Turkish  and  the  Arabic. 

Hebrew. — The  first  Hebrew  version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  made  by  Elias  Hutter,  and  published  in  his  Poly- 
glot New  Testament  in  1599.  Several  versions  have  since 
appeared.  Hutter's  version,  as  well  as  the  one  by  the  learned 
Mr.  Greenfield,  accompanying  Bagster's  Polyglot,  renders 
baptizo  invariably  by  bats  taval,  to  immerse.  The  version 
executed  for  the  London  Society  for  meliorating  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Jews,  transfers  the  Greek  word. 


254  APPENDIX. 


Ancient  and  Modem  Western  Versions. 

Latin. — Numerous  translations  of  the  Scriptures  were 
made  into  the  Latin  language,  at  the  first  introduction  of 
Christianity,  while  the  Greek  was  yet  perfectly  understood, 
although  it  was  being  gradually  supplanted  as  a  general 
language.  The  most  important  of  these,  and  the  one  which 
appears  to  have  acquired  a  more  extensive  circulation  than 
the  rest,  was  usually  known  by  the  name  of  the  Itala,  or  old 
Italic,  and  was  unquestionably  executed  in  the  early  part  of 
the  second  century.  This  version  adopts  the  Greek  word 
baptizo.  Let  it  be  remarked,  however,  that  the  Greek, 
although  the  Latin  was  gradually  supplanting  it,  was  at  this 
time  understood  and  used  as  a  general  language  over  Italy, 
Persia,  Syria,  and  Egypt,  and  indeed  throughout  almost  the 
whole  world.*  Add  to  this,  that  the  earliest  ecclesiastical 
writers,  and  perhaps  the  very  authors  of  this  version,  were 
of  Greek  origin.  Under  these  circumstances,  it  cannot  be 
thought  surprising  that  this  word  should  have  passed  from 
one  language  into  the  other.     Its  meaning,  however,  was  as 


*  L'usage  de  la  langue  Grecque,  qui  etoit  repandue  chez  toutes  les 
nations,  les  rendit  d'abord  moins  necessaires.  On  lisoit  les  originaux 
dn  Nouveau  Testament  presque  dans  tous  les  lieux  du  monde.  Les 
Eveques  de  Rome  etoient  souvent  Grecs  d'origine,  comme  on  le  con- 
noit  aisement  par  leurs  noms,  et  leur  langue  etoit  devenue  fort  com- 
mune en  Italic  Les  Perses,  les  Syriens,  les  Egyptiens,  entendoient 
cette  langue,  depuis  que  les  Captaines  d'Alexandrie,  le  Grand  l'avoient 
repandue.  Origine,  Clement  d'Alexandrie,  Denys,  Theophile  Cyrille, 
Evoques  de  la  ville  d'Alexandrie,  en  un'mot  les  grans  hommes  que 
1'Egypte  produse  dans  les  premiers  siecles,  ecrivoient  tous  en  Grec. 
Cette  langue  avoit  passe  jusques  chez  les  Getes  et  les  Sarmates,  quoi 
qu'on  l'y  prononcat  tres  duroment :  c'cst  Ovide  qui  nous  en  assure." — 
Basnage,  Hist,  de  TEglisc,  1,9,  3. 


APPENDIX.  255 

definitely  settled  and  as  well  understood  in  Latin,  as  in  Greek 
usage  ;  and  the  construction  that  they  employed  shows  most 
conclusively  that  it  was  accepted  in  the  sense  of  immersion; 
for  in  some  of  the  most  important  MSS.  that  remain  of  the 
Italic  version,  as  the  Codex  Vercellensis,  and  Codex  Veron- 
ensis,  the  verb  in  question  is  often,  and  in  the  last-named 
Codex  almost  invariably,  constructed  with  the  accusative 
case.  E.  g.  Mat.  3  :  6,  cod.  Vercel.  "  et  baptizabantur  *  * 
ab  illo  in  Jordanen  ;"  cod.  Veron.  "  et  baptizabantur  *  * 
*  *  *  danen  ;"  and  were  baptized  by  him  into  the  Jordan  ; 
v.  11,  cod  Veron.  "  baptizo  vos  in  aquam ;"  /  baptize  you 
into  water  :  v.  13,  cod  Veron.  "Tunc  venit  Jesus  a  Galilsea 
ad  Johannen  ut  baptizaretur  ab  eo  in  Jordanen ;"  then  came 
Jesus  from  Galilee  to  John,  that  he  might  be  baptized  by  him 
into  the  Jordan.  Compare  also  John  1  :  26,  and  Mark  1  :  5. 
See  Evangeliarum  Quadruplex,  ed  J.  Blanchini,  Rome,  1749. 
Nor  can  it  have  escaped  the  notice  of  the  intelligent  reader, 
that  the  Latin  Fathers  were  accustomed  to  use  baptizo 
synonymously  with  mergo,  tingo,  etc.  Thus  Tertullian,  De 
Bap.  c.  10,  quoting  Matt.  3:  11,  represents  John  as  saying 
that  he  dipped  [tinguere]  the  people  unto  repentance,  but 
that  one  should  come  after  him,  who  would  dip  [tingueret] 
them  in  the  Spirit  and  fire.  Now  Tertullian,  in  quoting  the 
Evangelist's  words,  could  not  have  substituted  tingo  for  bap- 
tizo, unless  the  two  words  had  been  synonymous.  Indeed, 
Prof.  Stuart,  p.  362,  acknowledges  that  the  Latin  as  well  as 
the  Greek  fathers,  plainly  construed  baptizo  in  the  sense  of 
immersion.  It  appears,  then,  that  the  early  Latin  translators 
and  ecclesiastical  writers  adopted  this  word,  because  it  was 
already  in  familiar  use,  and  was  as  universally  understood 
to  signify  immersion  among  the  Romans,  as  among  the 
Greeks.  The  Latin  versions,  therefore,  are  as  decisive  for 
immersion,  as  are  the   oriental  ones.     And,  although  the 


256  APPENDIX. 

Greek  language  gradually  fell  into  disuse  among  the  Ro- 
mans, this  word  having  been  once  adopted,  was,  as  a  natural 
consequence,  perpetuated  by  the  general  use  of  the  Latin 
Scriptures,  and  their  necessary  influence  upon  the  choice  of 
ecclesiastical  terms,  till  at  length  it  came  to  be  used  to  the 
almost  entire  exclusion  of  the  equivalent  vernacular  express- 
ions. Almost  all  the  Latin  interpreters,  whether  Catholic 
or  Protestant,  have  followed  the  earlier  translators  in  the 
adoption  of  the  Greek  word.  Some  of  the  most  recent  and 
best,  however,  translate  bwptizo  by  an  appropriate  Latin  term. 
Jaspis,  an  eminent  German  scholar  and  critic,  in  his  version 
of  the  epistles,  renders  it  either  by  immergo,  to  immerse, 
tingo,  to  dip,  or  some  equivalent  expression.  Prof.  H.  A. 
Schott,  in  his  critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  ac- 
companied with  a  Latin  translation,  renders  the  word  in  all 
cases  by  immergo,  whether  relating  to  the  Christian  rite  or 
not. 

Gothic. — The  Gothic  version  was  made  from  the  Greek, 
about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  by  Ulphila.s,  a  cele- 
brated bishop  of  the  Mcesogoths.  As  the  author  was  educated 
among  the  Greeks,  he  was  undoubtedly  fully  competent  to 
his  task.  Unfortunately,  however,  this  important  version  has 
not  come  down  to  us  entire.  Only  a  mutilated  copy  of  the 
four  gospels,  and  some  fragments  of  the  epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, remain.  This  version,  as  far  as  appears,  renders  bap- 
tizo  in  all  cases  by  daupyan,  to  dip.  Cases  not  relating  to 
the  Christian  rite  exhibit  the  same  principle.  Thus,  Marc. 
7  :  4  is  rendered,  "  And  when  they  came  from  the  market, 
ni  daupyand,  unless  they  dip,  they  eat  not ;  and  many  other 
things  there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  dau- 
pcinins,  the  d>pp>ings  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels, 
and  couches." 

German. — A  German  translation  from  the  Latin  Vulgate, 


APPENDIX.  257 

by  an  author  now  unknown,  was  first  printed  in  14GG,  and 
underwent  several  subsequent  impressions  before  the  appear- 
ance of  Luther's  inestimable  and  much-admired  translation, 
which  was  published  in  detached  portions  at  various  inter- 
vals, from  1522  to  1532.  The  Catholic  versions  by  Detem- 
berger  and  Emser  appeared  soon  after  that  of  Luther,  and 
in  1G30,  that  by  Caspar  Ulenburg.  All  these  versions  trans- 
late baptizo  by  taufen,  a  dialectical  variation  of  the  Gothic 
daupyan,  and  signifying  to  immerse.  Luther  says:  "The 
Germans  call  baptism,  tauff,  from  depth,  which  in  their  lan- 
guage they  call  tieff ;  as  it  is  proper  that  those  who  are 
baptized  be  deeply  immersed."*  The  author  of  the  "  Glos- 
sarium  Universale  Hebraicum"  referred  to  above,  represents 
the  Ger.  taufen  as  corresponding  in  form  and  signification 
with  the  Sax.  dippan,  Eng.  dip,  etc.  Gesenius,  as  already 
quoted  above,  classes  it  with  the  Goth,  doufan  [daupyan] 
Ital.  tuffare,  and  other  words  signifying  to  dip, — and  which 
he  considers  as  identical  in  regard  to  form  with  the  Heb. 
tava,  to  dip,  to  immerse.  Dr.  Knapp,  Professor  of  Theology 
at  the  University  of  Halle,  speaking  of  the  meaning  of  the 
word  baptism,  says  :  ':  to  $d-KTio\ia,  from  PaTrrl^eiv,  which 
properly  signifies  to  immerse,  (like  the  German  taufen,)  to 
dip  in,  to  wash  by  immersion."  In  another  place  he  says : 
"  It  would  have  been  better  to  have  adhered  generally  to 
the  ancient  practice,  as  even  Luther  and  Calvin  allowed." 

* <:  Priino,  nomen  Baptismus  Graecum  est :  Latine  potent  verti  mer- 
sio,  cum  inimergimus  aliquid  in  aquam,  ut  totum  tegatur'aqua  ;  et 
quamvis  illc  mos  jam  absoleverit  apud  plcerosque  (neque  enim  totos 
demergunt  pueros,  sed  tantum,  pancula  aqua  perfundunt)  debebant 
tamen  prorsus  immcrgi:  et  statim  retrahi.  Id  enim  etymologia  nom- 
inis  postulare  videtur.  Et  Germani  quoque  baptismum,  tauff  vocant, 
a  profundidate,  quam  tieff  illi  sua  lingua  vocant,  quod  profunde  demer- 
gi  conveniat  eos  qui  baptizuntur."  "Works,  voL  i.  p.  336.  Jena,  1556. 


258  APPENDIX. 

See  Knapp's  Theology,  translated  by  L.  Woods,  Jr.,  vol.  2, 
pp.  510,  517. 

German-Swiss.  The  version  in  the  German-Swiss,  or 
Helvetic  dialect,  originally  made  by  John  Piscator,  between 
the  years  1G02  and  1604,  and  subsequently  revised  by 
several  divinity  professors  and  pastors  of  the  Helvetic 
churches,  translates  baptizo  by  taufen.  The  version  by  Jo. 
Henr.  Reizius,  first  published  in  1703,  uses  taufen  in  cases 
relating  to  the  Christian  rite,  explaning  it  in  the  margin  by 
cintauchen,  the  common  word  for  immersion.  In  Mark  7  : 
4,  it  translates  baptizo  by  eintauchen,  to  immerse,  and  the 
noun  baptismos  by  eintauchunc/,  immersion  ;  and  so  in  Luke 
11  :  38.  In  Heb.  6  :  2,  and  9:  10,  baptismos  is  translated  by 
tauffe  in  all  the  versions  I  have  seen. 

Jewish  German.  The  Jewish  German  translations  pub- 
lished a  few  years  ago  by  the  London  Society  for  promoting 
Christianity  among  the  Jews,  likewise  uses  tauffen  in  trans- 
lating baptizo. 

Lower  Saxon.  The  Lower  Saxon  translates  the  word  in 
question  by  taufen.  This  version  was  executed  under  the 
direction  of  John  Bugenhagius,  and,  according  to  Le  Long, 
was  printed  in  1524 — 30  ;  but  according  to  Home,  1533 — 4. 
See  Le  Long  Biblioth.  Sac.  P.  ii.  p.  247.  Home.  Int.  vol. 
ii.  p.  229. ' 

Belgian.  A  Belgian  or  Flemish  translation  made  from 
the  Latin  vulgate,  was  printed  in  1475.  Another  was  exe- 
cuted from  Luther's  German  version,  for  the  use  of  the 
Protestants,  in  1560.  A  new  translation,  however,  was 
executed  from  the  original,  by  order  of  the  Synod  of  Dort, 
and  printed  in  1037.  This  translation  has  been  much 
admired  for  its  fidelity.  The  Belgian  versions  translate 
baptizo  by  doopen,  which  is  a  dialectical  form  of  the  word 
taufen,  and  signifies  to  dip. 


APPENDIX.  259 

Danish.  The  earliest  Danish  version  was  made  from  the 
Latin  vulgate.  The  next  was  executed  from  Luther's  German 
version,  by  command  of  Christian  III.,  king  of  Denmark, 
and  printed  in  1550.  It  was  subsequently  revised  and  cor- 
rected by  order  of  Frederick  II.,  in  1589.  The  version  in 
present  use  was  made  from  the  original  Greek,  by  John 
Paul  Resenius,  and  at  the  command  of  Christian  IV.  It  was 
first  published  in  1605 — 7.  See  Le  Long,  Pars.  ii.  pp.  287, 
288.  Home,  vol.  ii.  p.  229.  The  Danish  translate  baptizo 
by  dobe,  which  is  a  dialectical  form  of  the  Goth,  daupyan 
and  the  German  taufen,  and  signifies  to  dip. 

Swedish.  The  Swedish  version  was  originally  made  from 
Luther's  German  translation,  and  printed  at  Upsal  in  1541, 
by  the  command  of  Gustavus  I.  king  of  Sweden.  This  was 
afterwards  revised  and  conformed  to  the  original  text  in 
1703,  by  the  command  of  Charles  XII.  See  Le  Long, 
Pars.  ii.  p.  296.  Home,  vol.  ii.  p.  230.  The  Swedish 
renders  baptizo  by  d'dpa,  a  dialectical  variation  of  lobe,  and 
signifying  to  dip. 

Welsh.  The  Welsh  translation  of  the  New  Testament 
was  originally  made  by  order  of  Parliament,  and  first  pub- 
lished in  1567.  This  was  revised  and  corrected  by  Wm. 
Morgan,  bishop  of  Llandaff,  in  1588.  During  the  reign  of 
James  I.,  the  Welsh  version  underwent  a  further  examina- 
tion and  correction  by  Dr.  Parry.  This  corrected  version 
which  was  published  in  1620,  is  the  basis  of  all  the  subse- 
quent editions.  See  Home,  vol.  2,  pp.  258,  259.  The 
Welsh  translates  baptizo  by  bedyddio,  to  immerse.  For  the 
original  derivation  and  meaning  of  this  word,  the  reader  is 
referred  to  the  authority  of  Edward  Lhuyd,  A.M.,  a  learned 
Welshman,  and  a  very  distinguished  antiquarian,  in  his 
Archoeologia  Britannica,  under  the  word  Baptisma.  The 
following   is   the   substance  of  his  remarks:   "Bedydd,  the 


260  APPENDIX. 

Welsh  word  for  baptism,  is  derived  from  suddiant,  a  British 
word  which  is  well  known  to  signify  dipping,  or  immersion ; 
and  the  verb  of  which  is  soddi,  or  suddo.  The  word  for 
baptism  in  the  Cornn-British  dialect,  is  bcdshidhian  (bcdsud- 
dian),  the  affinity  of  which,  with  the  Welsh  word  suddiant, 
must  be  obvious  to  every  one.  This  Cornn-British  word 
bedsuddlan,  points  out  the  origin  of  the  Armorican  word  for 
baptism,  badudhiant  (baduddiant),  which  is  doubtless  no 
other  than  badsuddiant,  whose  correspondence  or  synonymy 
with  the  Welsh  word  suddiant,  is  equally  clear  and  certain 
with  that  of  the  aforementioned  Cornn-British  word.  By  a 
comparison  of  these  Armorican  and  Cornn-British  words, 
we  are  led  unavoidably  to  conclude  that  bedsuddiant,  or 
badsuddiant ,  must  have  been  the  original  word  for  baptism 
in  the  British  language,  and  that  from  which  the  present 
Welsh  word  bedydd  sprung.  In  time  this  ancient  British 
word,  like  many  others  in  all  languages,  underwent  some 
change  by  abridgment  or  contraction.  It  was  originally 
bedsuddiant  or  badsuddiant ;  and  whatever  may  be  said  as 
to  the  precise  meaning  of  the  prefix,  the  word  itself  unques- 
tionably signified  immersion;  for  the  word  suddiant  has 
always  amounted  to  that  as  fully  as  any  word  in  any  lan- 
guage could  possibly  do."  See  Article  Baj)tis7na,  in  Lhuyd's 
Arch.  Brit.  Comp.  Vocab.,  ed.  1707;  or  a  translation  of  the 
same,  in  Dr.  Richards'  answer  to  Rev.  B.  Evens  on  Baptism, 
pp.  1G,  17,  ed.  1791. 

Sclavonian.  The  Sclavonian  or  old  Russian  translation 
of  the  New  Testament  was  made  from  the  original  Greek  in 
the  ninth  century,  by  the  two  brothers  Cyril  and  Methodius. 
It  was  first  printed  in  1570.  The  Russians,  being  a  branch 
of  the  Greek  church,  practice  immersion  in  all  ordinary 
cases  ;  but  the  ceremony  of  making  the  sign  of  the  cross 
upon  the  candidate  in  connection  with  immersion,  had  come 


APPENDIX.  261 

to  be  regarded  in  the  time  of  Cyril  and  Methodius,  as  the 
more  important  ceremony  of  the  two,  and  absolutely  essen- 
tial to  the  ordinance.  Hence,  among  the  Russians  this  rite 
is  technically  designated  from  the  "  crossing,"  and  not  from 
the  "  immersion."  Their  version,  therefore,  does  not  in  fact 
translate  haptizo  at  all ;  but  substitutes  the  term  krestit,  to 
cross;  as  Matt.  3 :  5,  6,  "  Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem 
and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and 
were  crossed  by  him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins,"  v.  11  : 
"  I  indeed  cross  you,"  etc.  This  is  greatly  to  be  regretted ; 
for  such  a  technical  designation  of  the  rite  banishes  entirely 
from  view  the  ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  substitutes  in 
its  place  a  tradition  of  men  ;  and  every  version  constructed 
upon  this  principle,  though  not  in  the  least  degree  hostile  to 
immersion,  not  only  sanctions,  but  is  calculated  to  perpetuate 
a  piece  of  gross  supserstition  and  folly,  that  had  its  birth 
among  the  early  corruptions  of  the  man  of  sin.  [This  mean- 
ing of  krestit  is  stated  upon  the  authority  of  a  Eussian  gentle- 
man, whose  education  and  rank  are  a  sufficient  guaranty  for 
its  correctness.] 

.  Russian.  As  the  Sclavonic  is  no  longer  understood  among 
the  common  people,  a  translation  of  the  Scriptures  into 
modern  Russ  was  made  by  M.  Gliick,  a  Livonian  clergyman, 
and  printed  at  Amsterdam  at  1698.  As  the  Russian  lan- 
guage has  undergone  considerable  changes  since  that  time, 
the  Emperor  Alexander  in  1816,  directed  the  Synod  of 
Moscow  to  prepare  a  new  translation.  The  New  Testament 
was  accordingly  completed  in  1822.  See  Home,  vol.  ii.  p. 
266.  The  modern  Russian  employs  krestit,  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  Sclavonic.  Several  other  nations  in  northern 
and  eastern  Europe,  which  are  related  to  Russia  either  by 
language  or  religion,  appear  to  have  constructed  their  trans- 
lations  upon   a  similar  principle.      Both   the   British   and 


202  APPENDIX. 

Foreign  Bible  Society,  and  the  American  Bible  Society, 
have,  within  a  few  years  past,  aided  extensively  in  circulat- 
ing the  Scriptures  in  the  Sclavonic,  Russian,  and  kindred 
dialects. 

Romanese  and  kindred  versions.  The  Romanese  lan- 
guage is  divided  into  two  dialects,  the  Churwelsche  and  the 
Ladiniche  ;  the  former  of  which  is  spoken  by  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Engadine,  one  of  the  loftiest  vallies  of  Switzerland, 
bordering  upon  the  Tyrol ;  and  the  latter  by  the  Ladins, 
who  reside  on  the  confines  of  Italy.  The  versions  in  these 
dialects,  as  well  as  in  the  Italian,  French,  Spanish,  Vaudois» 
Portuguese,  etc.,  adopt  the  word  baplizo  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  ancient  Latin.  Nor  is  this  at  all  surprising.  These 
languages  were  derived  principally  from  the  Latin.  And 
since  in  the  later  stages  of  the  •  Latin,  baptizo  was  almost 
exclusively  used  for  designating  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
its  adoption  in  these  languages  was  almost  a  matter  of  course. 
Its  retention,  however,  in  common  use,  and  especially  its 
adoption  into  their  versions  of  the  Scriptures,  was,  to  say  the 
least,  extremely  injudicious  and  improper.  While  the  mean- 
ing of  this  word  was  generally  understood,  there  was  no  im- 
propriety in  using  it;  but  in  these  languages,  just  as  in  the 
English,  it  conveys  no  definite  idea,  except  to  the  learned  : 
and  upon  no  rational  principle  whatever  can  a  translator  be 
justified  in  retaining  any  word  that  is  capable  of  translation, 
after  it  has  ceased  to  be  intelligible  to  common  readers. 

English  and  other  versions.  The  first  English  trans- 
lations of  the  Bible  known  to  be  extant,  was  made  by  an 
unknown  individual,  and  is  placed  by  Archbishop  Usher  to 
the  year  1290.  About  the  year  1380,  the  celebrated  John 
WickJiffe  translated  the  entire.  Bible  from  the  Latin  vulgate 
into  the  English  language,  not  being  sufficiently  acquainted 
with  the  Hebrew  and   Greek  to  translate  from  the  orisrinals. 


APPENDIX.  263 

The  first  printed  edition  of  the  English  scriptures  was  a 
translation  of  the  New  Testament  from  the  original  Greek, 
by  Win.  Tindal,  published  abroad  in  the  year  1526.  The 
first  edition  of  the  entire  English  Bible  was  that  of  Miles 
Coverdale,  published  in  October,  1535.  Matthewe's  Bible 
was  published  in  1537  ;  Cranmer's  Bible,  in  1539  ;  Taverner's 
Bible  in  the  same  year ;  the  Geneva  Bible,  in  1560  ;  the 
Bishops'  Bible,  in  1568 ;  the  Rhemish  New  Testament, 
translated  from  the  Latin  vulgate  by  the  Romanists,  in  1582  ; 
and  the  Douay  Bible  by  the  same,  in  1610.  The  transla- 
tion prepared  by  the  command  of  King  James,  was  first 
published  in  1611.  Home,  vol.  2,  p,  232—249.  The  intro- 
duction of  the  word  baptize  into  the  English  language,  is  to 
be  traced  to  the  early  footing  obtained  in  England  by  the 
emissaries  of  the  Romish  church,  and  to  the  exclusive  use  of 
the  Latin  Scriptures  previously  to  the  circulation  of  vernac- 
ular translations.  But  this  term  had  not.  at  the  time  the 
present  authorized  version  was  made,  the  universal  suffrage 
it  has  since  obtained.  It  had  been  introduced,  however,  into 
most  of  the  previous  translations,  and  King  James  com- 
manded "  the  old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be  kept,  as  the 
word  church,  not  to  be  translated  congregation."  The  word 
baptize  was  of  course  included.  Thus  a  word  imposed  by 
foreign  influence,  but  never  adopted  into  the  language  with 
any  settled  meaning,  and  to  which  none  but  the  learned  could 
attach  any  definite  idea,  was  required  by  royal  authority  to 
be  retained,  whatever  might  be  the  judgment  or  choice  of  the 
translators.  Most  of  the  versions  since  made  by  Pedobap- 
tists  have  been  constructed  on  the  same  principle ;  as,  for 
example,  the  Irish,  Monks,  Gaelic,  Mohawk,  Esquimaux, 
Taheitan,  etc.  In  the  Seneca  language  they  have  rendered 
baptizo  to  sprinkle ;  in  the  Cherokee,  to  immerse;  and  in  the 
Icelandic  and  Chinese,  to  wash.  The  Baptists,  who  have 
translated  the  Scriptures,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  in 
between  thirty  and  forty  of  the  languages  of  India,  have,  I 
believe,  invariably  proceeded  upon  the  principle  of  translat- 
ing the  word  according  to  its  proper  and  acknowledged  mean- 
ing, to  immerse. 

It  appears,  then,  upon  a  review  of  the  whole,  that  the 
ancient  oriental  versions  which  were  executed  by  those  who 


264  APPENDIX. 

were  perfectly  familiar  with  the  Greek  language,  and  before 
there  could  have  existed  any  motive  for  mistranslation  in  this 
case,  uniformly  rendered  baptizo  in  the  sense  of  immersion; 
that  the  first  instance  of  the  transfer  of  this  word  was  in  a 
country  where  the  Greek  was  spoken  as  a  general  language, 
and  to  a  great  extent  was  as  well  understood  as  the  vernacu- 
lar tongue ;  and  that  its  retention  in  the  Latin  language  after 
the  Greek  had  fallen  into  general  disuse,  was  the  occasion  of 
its  introduction  into  other  languages,  as  a  barbarous  and  un- 
meaning term,  to  the  great  prejudice  of  the  interests  of  truth, 
and  of  the  peace  of  the  church.  On  what  ground,  then,  can 
Prof.  Stuart  regard  those  versions  that  are  executed  on  the 
principle  adopted  by  the  Baptist  missionaries,  as  sectarian 
translations  1  The  fact  that  these  versions  accord  with  our 
distinguishing  sentiments,  surely  will  not  be  assumed  as  the 
ground  of  such  a  charge.  If  the  simple  fact  that  the  senti- 
ments and  practice  of  a  particular  denomination  harmonize 
with  the  Scriptures,  constitutes  those  Scriptures  sectarian, 
then  must  sectarianism  be  a  harmless  thing.  In  case  that 
the  meaning  of  the  original  is  either  perverted  or  concealed, 
for  the  sake  of  favoring  a  sect,  the  translation  becomes 
properly  sectarian.  But  on  what  principle  can  a  translation 
be  pronounced  sectarian,  which  faithfully  represents  the 
meaning  of  the  original,  and  is  supported  by  the  earliest  and 
most  important  versions  in  existence;  and  while,  inde- 
pendently of  those  made  by  Baptists,  the  versions  now  used 
over  more  than  one  half  of  the  Protestant  world,  and  by 
Christians  of  every  denomination,  translate  the  word  in 
question  precisely  in  the  same  manner  ? 

The  Baptists  do  not  translate  baptizo  to  immerse,  because 
such  a  rendering  harmonizes  with  their  practice,  and  will 
tend  to  promote  their  denominational  views.  Far  from  it. 
Those  men  of  God  who  have  manifested  such  disinterested 
zeal,  and  endured  so  much  self-denial  and  toil  for  the  salva- 
tion of  the  heathen,  deserve  the  credit  of  purer  and  holier 
motives.  They  construct  their  translations  upon  this  prin- 
ciple, because  the  literal  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  original 
requires  this  rendering;  and  that  translator  who  consents  in 
any  case  to  conceal  the  truth  of  God,  by  introducing  a  bar- 
barous term  not  understood  by  common  readers,  incurs  a 
responsibility  which  I  should  tremble  to  bear. 


